26/11/2015 Victoria Derbyshire

Hello, it's 9.15, I'm Julian Worricker, welcome to the programme.

David Cameron is going to set out his case to MPs for

the UK to launch air strikes against so called Islamic State in Syria.

What has changed since the last time the Commons

As the Chancellor promises to give a hand to families hoping to get

a foot on the housing ladder, we'll be finding out what some of

those prospective home owners make of the measures revealed yesterday.

Why are prisons in their worst state for ten years?

We are talking exclusively to the man in charge

Hello, welcome to the programme, we're on BBC Two and the BBC News

David Cameron is to set out his reasons for Britain expanding

its air strikes to Syria later this morning.

We've heard this before, so what is different this time?

We will look at the arguments for and against, and what has

changed, and we'll bring you that statement from the Prime Minister

Prisons are in their worst state for ten years, and violence

We'll talk to the Chief Inspector of Prisons to find out what is

And, as ever, we will keep you up to date with all

Your contributions to this programme and your expertise really is key

- texts will be charged at the standard network rate.

And, of course, you can watch the programme online wherever you

are, via the bbc news app or our website bbc.co.uk/victoria

and you can also subscribe to all our features on the news app,

by going to add topics and searching "Victoria Derbyshire".

Air strikes against the terror group in Syria, Islamic State. David

Cameron says they would be part of a compromise of strategy, partly in

response to the murderous attacks in Paris two weeks ago. We already

bombing in Iraq, but MPs voted against a Syria campaign two years

ago, that would have been against the Asad regime. We can have a look

back at the developments since 2013. -- temp Assad.

The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime is unacceptable,

and the world cannot stand by in the face of that.

The ayes to the right, 272, the nos to the left, 285.

And when we have the unique capabilities

to help avert a massacre, I believe the United States

That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely.

But there is no intelligence to suggest that an attack is imminent.

Well, in order to convince MPs that the UK should commit to air strikes,

David Cameron will have to answer a series of questions

Our political guru Normal Smith can tell us more.

Welcome to a bright and the sharp Westminster and what is a big day

because today is the day when David Cameron has to convince MPs of the

case for bombing IS in Syria, we know his big argument, we can't just

leave it to the French or the Americans, we have got to take

responsibility ourselves. In order to win over MPs, he has got to

answer questions raised by the foreign affairs select committee

which is a conservative dominated committee, which wrote a report

recently, saying, we cannot go to walk but we cannot bomb in Syria

unless these questions are answered. How will David Cameron respond? Here

he is, sitting down at his desk in Downing Street, where he will have

to write out his answers and present them to MPs. The first question,

would UK involvement make any difference? His answer is likely to

be that if British planes are involved, there will be fewer

Katsidis, our pilots are better and we have more accurate weapons. --

there will be fewer casualties. The second question, would it be legal?

His answer would be, it is self defence can we are acting to defend

our citizens and by the way we have a UN resolution, as well. The third

question, what is the diplomatic plan? Is their diplomatic support?

David Cameron will answer that the Russians are now getting involved

and the regional players are becoming involved and we have

something known as the Vienna process which provides a diplomatic

route to try and resolve this. Those are the easy questions, he faces two

much tougher questions. The first one, who is going to provide the

troops? Who is actually going to fight and defeat Isis on the ground

in Syria? That is a much harder question, we know it will not be

British troops, American troops, French troops, we are not getting

involved on the ground, but who is Westwood David Cameron will probably

say maybe the Syrians -- but who is? May be the Free Syrian Army,

maybe the Kurdish Peshmerga will do it, that is a tough question. The

second question, what happens afterwards? The doubt surrounds

President Assad, the Russians have said he is going nowhere, he must

remain in post, but Britain and the rest of the West say no way, he is

part of the problem, he has got to go. There is no deal over Assad, and

that means it is much harder to see how David Cameron answers that

question. There are three easy questions, and two pretty tough

questions. Norman, thanks for joining us.

So, how likely is it that David Cameron will gain

the backing of not just Conservative MPs, but Labour ones, too.

Joining us in the studio is Colonel Bob Stewart,

a Conservative MP who's a former British army officers, and Labour

Those questions raised by Norman, are they broadly accurate in terms

of what they pose and the relative difficulties of them? Yes,

absolutely, those big questions at the end, they are the big ones, who

is going to do the business on the ground? Anyone who thinks about it,

they know that air power alone will not win anything, but funnily

enough, air power alone stopped them in their tracks early and it might

well keep them in control, in the area it is for the moment, and stop

expanding more. We all know that someone has got to go in on the

ground, and at the moment the government's view is that it cannot

be British troops, American troops, French, and that the Arab world

should sort itself out. You agree with that? I would, but in the end,

if the threat to our country is so great but we may well have to

consider doing some sort of operation on the ground. We are not

there yet. How much difference, realistically, could UK air strikes

makeover Syria? We are very accurate, and when people say we

don't want civilian casualties, a la weapons systems are so accurate they

can take out one house and leave the 1 beside it standing -- a la

weapons. People in the house might be innocent, people say, but I would

say our targeting is pretty good, as well, and the people in that house,

if they are something to do with Da'ish, they support the killing of

our people, so they are not innocent. What would you want to

hear from the Prime Minister? I want to know what they are going to do

about Russia, we have already had in a very crowded conflicted Essbase,

overlapping people flying, we have already seen one Russian plane shot

down. Russia was not attacking Da'ish. Russia had been involved in

bombing refugee camps, 70% of their attacks have been and what we called

the moderate opposition, many of whom are anything but moderate -- on

what we call. We have got into a conflict there, but my concern is

that we will be sending our planes into an already conflicted Essbase

without any agreement with the Russians -- air space. We could get

into a dogfight. There are plenty of tasks to do in Iraq, the problems in

Iraq have not gone away, while Syria has risen on the agenda. We can take

a burden from the French, from the Americans, and we can continue.

There is a moral obligation to do that, some would argue. There is,

but we also have a situation where we were actually asked in by the

Iraq is and we are doing a task which we were asked to undertake and

we can carry on doing that, we can increase our capability there, and

if we were worried about why have we not done that? There is the UN

resolution, so the issue over who asked who to do what, that is to

some extent their significant as a result of what the French resolution

said at the UN? The problem with that, it does not address the issue

of the Russians. The Russians are not attacking the same people as we

want to attack. Let's deal with the Russia question, what would you say

in response to her concerns? She is right, we have got to deal with the

Russians, we need agreement, political agreement, we have got to

be very careful about any aircraft flying in Syrian airspace. The fact

of the matter is, we have French aircraft, American aircraft, Syrian

aircraft, Russian aircraft, so I'm amazed that these aircraft are

flying into that country and there is not some kind of coordination,

and there must be. There must be political agreement on the

coordination, even if we don't agree on everything, we have got to

coordinate these fast jets flying at incredible speed over a relatively

limited area. I have a few comments from people who are already getting

in touch. Chris says, bombing Syria is the answer, we should be acting

and not talking, we should be acting like the rest of the Allies, because

he says these people are pure evil. How do you respond? Absolutely,

these people are pure evil, but you have got to look at what the

military capability is. The Russians in response to the downing of the

jet by the Turks has been to move in their surface-to-air missiles, and

there has to be some agreement about our planes not being taken down by

those Ed offence -- air defences. There is a great reluctance to agree

anything with the Russians, because there is not much trust. I sense

brought agreement regarding that, but what about what happens

afterwards which Mark afterwards we have got to be prepared to stay.

What does that mean in practice? You cannot just win and leave, because

we made that mistake many times before. We have also made the

mistake of removing strongmen and leaving chaos. One of the lessons of

the last ten, 12 years, has been removed a dictator and chaos

follows. -- removed. One other point from a viewer, and

follows. -- removed. One other point David Cameron -- one person says,

why does David Cameron want to bomb Syria when as he says, most of

Islamic State are already here? Because the catalyst for ataxia,

Islamic State are already here? centre is in Syria, that is where

the inspiration is coming from -- the catalyst for a tax here. We have

got to deal with misguided people in this country, as well, but we have

got to go to the eye of the octopus, which is in Syria.

The great recruiting Sergeant is President Assad, because he is what

people want to oppose. We have not even mentioned him, that is another

issue. Who do we replace him with? He is a figurehead, the head of a

regime. Take him out, OK, but you still have the regime. Unless you

replace that with something that will be less corrupt, oppressive,

that will give the youth unemployment a chance for the

country they can help build, we are wasting our time, and we have never

yet been good at doing that. Thank you both very much indeed. We shall

await David Cameron later. Thanks for joining us today -

still to come. Turkey releases

an audio recording of what it says were warnings to a Russian warplane

before it was shot down. Drugs, gangs and bullying,

just some of the problems affecting We'll be asking the man in charge

of inspections why they are for the UK to join and strikes

against the Islamic terror group in Syria,

against the Islamic terror group in not be allowed to become more

dangerous and bombing would be part of a conference of strategy.

Turkey has released a recording of warnings it says it gave a Russian

fighter jet before it shut it down, prompting period from Moscow.

The aircraft was downed on Tuesday after claims that it violated

Turkish airspace. The Russian President Vladimir Putin is holding

talks with the French president today in Moscow to discuss the fight

against Islamic State in Syria. George Osborne has defended his

decision to abandon tax credits in his spending review. He said it was

not a weakness to listen and that the improved economy have made it

possible to reverse the policy. I do not think it is a weakness to

listen when people raise points. Because our country is fundamentally

stronger, our finances are better than people expected, I could help

people in the transition to this lower welfare, higher wage economy

that we all want to build. Talks are due to begin

at the conciliation service Acas in an effort to avert industrial

action by junior doctors. The first of three planned walkouts

is scheduled for next Tuesday, in Members of the rock group who

survived the Paris terror attack say they are determined to return to the

venue. The Eagles of Death Metal were on stage when gunmen burst in.

Pope Francis has been holding a mass at the University of Nairobi in

front of thousands. He met both Christian and Muslim leaders, it is

his first visit to Africa, security is tight.

Let's catch up with all the sport now.

Let's join Hugh, and a frustrating night for the Manchester sides

Another night of Champions League action last night, and it wasn't

City were beaten by Italian giants Juventus, and

although Manchester United shared a goalless draw with PSV Eindhoven,

they've drawn plenty of criticism for the manner of their display.

The reaction from fans on Radio 5 Live after was vitriolic,

manager Louis van Gaal was accused of betraying the DNA

of the club and their philosophy of attacking football.

It's now five goals in seven matches for United.

It isn't a great spectacle right now and

there were fans last night bemoaning the price of their tickets.

Well, we'll be talking about the price of tickets as the Premier

League launches a new campaign today to warn football fans of

And you might remember yesterday we met a 16-year-old weightlifter

taking part in her first senior competition at the World

Championships, we are going to tell you how the Rio hopeful got on.

All that and more coming up just after 10am.

Breaking news about net migration to the UK, it has hit a new all-time

high, according to the ONS. That is the difference between the number of

people coming to live in Britain and those emigrating, the figure is

336,000, 82,000 more than the previous year, the Government has

slipped further away from hitting its target of getting net migration

down to the tens of thousands by 2020. More on that from our

correspondent shortly. What looked like a deepening

international cohesion after the Paris terror attacks started to look

shaky after Turkey shot down that Russian jet. The French and Russian

presidents are holding talks in Moscow to discuss the fight against

iOS in Syria. Both countries are already carrying

out airstrikes in the country. But after Turkey shot down a Russian

warplane earlier this week, Turkey has released what it says is

some of the radio traffic Talk to us a bit more about what

these talks might produce. Francois Hollande is going to Russia to try

to win concessions from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, over

the fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but also to win

concessions, to press Vladimir Putin over a political solution in Syria.

In a marathon week of diplomacy, Francois Lond has been trying to

build a grand coalition, his initial cause for a big coalition, including

Russia and the US, is being played down now here, especially after the

incident of the downing of the Russian jet by Turkey, which clearly

shows that all of these countries involved in the campaign of air

strikes have a common enemy, but still have many different interests.

At best, French officials are hoping that Francois Hollande will be able

to get action that is better coordinated against Islamic State,

with Russia, as we are quite far from a joint military command.

More comments coming in in light of what the Government may recommend,

Mark says, we need to help our allies and protect our own. Trevor

says, we have a Ministry of Defence and not a Ministry of War, we must

defend ourselves and not put our service personnel deliberately in

harm 's way. Paul says, what has changed since the last vote, who

will be bomb? Eight-week says, start loving, enjoy life. Iraq escapee

highlighted reasons to destroy is a mixed, N strikes are needed. Plenty

more of those through the programme. Barclays Bank has been fined ?72

million for failing to carry out enough

checks on ultra-wealthy customers. Our business correspondent

Theo Leggett is here - They set up a deal to invest money

on the of very rich people who were also what were described as

politically exposed persons, in positions of Government or sensitive

industries, possibly abroad, where there may be issues. They did not

carry out enough checks to check that those people were not involved

in money-laundering or financial crime of any sort. Normally, banks

are under a requirement to carry out checks in a rigorous way, but what

seems to have happened is that Barclays was so keen to land and

elephant deal, it was discussed internally as the deal of the

century, that would make the bank a lot of money, they are allowed some

of those checks to be avoided. They signed a confidential letter

agreement with the people concerned, and did not do what they should have

done. Senior management were too keen to get the deal done, and that

is what they have been fined for. There is no suggestion there was a

financial crime or wrong doing, but they did not check carefully enough.

How damaging is it? Barclays Bank has been involved in a number of

scandals, the foreign exchange edge marking scandal, very conjugated

things, -- complicated things, in this case the fine is smaller, but

it is an harassment. It does not look or when Barclays' logo is

splashed over the news because it did not check carefully enough. It

is Anna Barris meant, about reputation, but they can afford the

fine. Prisons in England and Wales are

in their worst state for ten years, with violence on the increase,

according to the chief inspector The Government itself says too many

institutions are ageing and ineffective and far too many

inmates commit crimes almost The Government has promised nine new

prisons in England and Wales, to sell Victorian jails for housing.

So what's going wrong with our prison system

and can it be easily fixed at a time when budgets are being cut back?

The current chief inspector Nick Hardwick will step down

in January, after turning down the chance to reapply for the role.

We'll speak to him in a few minutes' time.

First, though, we wanted to find out what people

working in the system and people serving time felt about conditions

We asked people to write us anonymous letters

Their words have been voiced by actors.

The staff here are stretched to the limit on a daily basis.

There are some who go above and beyond to help,

but you have to feel sorry when one lone female is left to contain 90 or

more male prisoners, sometimes, it is for long jury shins.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a major incident here,

because I believe the authorities lost control some time ago.

Conditions in prisons are not something that the general

Yes, you do get to see documentaries on TV, but they only show what the

With the staffing situation as it is now,

We are very short of experienced prison officers.

That is a different type of prison officer on a much lower pay scale.

They are meant to have minimal contact with the prisoners.

In reality, it is 100% contact all the time.

Education is so important because we have to cut reoffending rates.

Michael Gove says 20 to 30% of prisoners have learning

In my experience, it is more like 50%.

A grown man is not going to walk in and say he cannot read or write.

At the moment, nothing changes, year after year.

I believe that prison is a much more dangerous place now than

It really does feel like we have gone backwards.

Prisoners are spending more time locked up, due to staff shortages,

It is not just that prisons are crowded.

In the last jail I was in, I witnessed bullying on a daily basis.

Most of it was drug-related, and because of staff cuts,

the guards were too intimidated to do much about it.

the guards were too intimidated to charge of inspections? There

the guards were too intimidated to the job, they are more

the guards were too intimidated to enough has been done to stop them

committing more crime. Why enough has been done to stop them

of all, too many prisoners, not enough has been done to stop them

enough star, the men there are enough has been done to stop them

spice, and that leads to bullying and debt. That has created

highs, that is a concern you have raised in recent times, how do they

get knew exactly we could stop it, but

it depends on the sort knew exactly we could stop it, but

perimeter, men are going backwards and forwards to work,

perimeter, men are going backwards catapult it in. They can use drones

almost. In local catapult it in. They can use drones

themselves can bring it in, maybe it catapult it in. They can use drones

staff are corrupt. When you catapult it in. They can use drones

who are clearly under the influence? catapult it in. They can use drones

influence, it is dangerous, it catapult it in. They can use drones

less badly affected, they were catapult it in. They can use drones

aren't the staff to deal catapult it in. They can use drones

things. I would go onto catapult it in. They can use drones

staff, and you cannot find one to talk

staff, and you cannot find one to staff reductions, a growing

population, and more difficult population and those things together

a really stretch the system. It is worth reiterating, the

Ministry of Justice statement that we saw at the end of that film, too

many prisoners are ageing and ineffective, and that is why we are

investing in a modern prison, where governors are in power to run

prisons in the way they think best and prisoners are given a chance to

work or learn and quite a lot has been made of the fact that new

prisons are about to be built. The 1 thing I feel positive about as I

come to the end of my term, the government seems to be listening to

what we are saying, and what Michael Gove is saying he is going to do is

spot on. He has made a difference? He has not made a difference yet,

and inspectors can we believe it when we see it, rather than the

policies. You are sensing a different tone? He has a different

tone. What he's encouraging people to do. The prison system is a

disciplined service, if they get a very clear steer from the top about

what is wanted, we want more guys into education, so they are more

likely to get a job when they leave and stay out of trouble, they will

try and deliver that. If they get the message that is not important,

they will do something else, and so I think the tone is important,

they will do something else, and so the key thing, replacing the

Victorian ruins we keep people in with new modern buildings,

emphasising education, doing something about the boys who are in

custody, tried to do something about youth justice, that is very

important, but he has got to deliver it. Talking about rehabilitation,

the government also talks about this, you are aware there is a

concern out there, that there is too great an emphasis on that, and

people start to think it will be too soft and comfortable, the element of

punishment, of making people realise they have done something seriously

wrong, that has gone away? Punishment is an important part.

That is an important part of the prison system. I've been doing this

job six years and I've yet to find any holiday camps. I'm surprised

personally about how grim prisons are, and how pleased I am to get out

at the end of the day, I got keys, I can leave any time I want, and for

people who are stuck who are held, rightly so at times, even the best

prison with the best staff, it is a very severe punishment indeed. We

don't need to think of ways of making it worse. Do you argue that

there are actually... They are more effective ways of punishing the more

serious offenders in prisons? Undoubtedly, there are some men in

prison who have committed such serious offences, they still a

threat or the only proper way to punish them is with a prison

sentence, but there will be other people, who I think, we can punish

them but also reformed them in other ways which will also be cheaper.

Such as? Community service type punishments, that people have

confidence in, and I think there is the technology to make sure that

people can actually do community sentences.

people can actually do community across the political spectrum, is

prisons are a good use of taxpayers money? Do we want to spend money on

prison places or soldiers or nurses? You can't exempt prisons from the

spending decisions that every other bit of the state is now facing. The

money could be used more wisely? Yes, but it leaves prisoners in no

doubt, that if they have committed an offence, they are being punished,

but that is about more reforming people, and if they go back into the

Trinity, they are less likely to create the havoc and

Trinity, they are less likely to which often happens -- if they go

back into the community. Why did you want to do this job? I wanted to

tell politicians what I found, and how it was, they did not like that

message at times. They probably knew it was coming. They probably thought

I would soften the message, but I said I wasn't going to do this. With

these kind of jobs, you ought to do it properly, speak truth to power,

and then say, it's been a privilege to have the opportunity to do this

job, but now I will do something hours, I will not be dependent on

anybody what I do it. -- something else. Rose on Facebook says it was a

horrible place to be, regardless of how good... 128, our prison system

is in dire need of more funding and resources to better rehabilitate

criminals -- we have one tweak here. Another one says, prison should be a

deterrent. Another person says, maybe there should be two layers in

two different establishments, nasty and nice. We have that, if you have

a very serious offender, they will be in a high security prison where

the regime will be very tough. If you want people to

the regime will be very tough. If prison, I don't mind that, but if

you are frightened you are not going prison, I don't mind that, but if

reading and writing so that you can get and hold down a job.

frightened beforehand, you might not commit the crime that

frightened beforehand, you might not there? People in prison are often

there because they do not think there? People in prison are often

things through they would not be there in the first place, and I

think prison is a severe there in the first place, and I

and once they are there, I think we need to have a greater focus on

making sure that they don't come back. That is not just good for

them, but good for all of us out in the community, that is what

them, but good for all of us out in make our families safer and yours.

them, but good for all of us out in One final thing. Michael

them, but good for all of us out in made clear who he would prefer, and

you have said before, the idea that you are appointed by the same

element of government that you will potentially criticise,

element of government that you will comfortable with stop we are falling

behind how other Western countries are doing this, I think jobs like

mine, and schools inspectors, where part of the job might be criticising

politicians who are running the services, I don't think you can be

appointed and services, I don't think you can be

people. That needs to change. That is something I pressed for during my

term and I hope it will happen. Thanks for joining us. We have

brought you that breaking News, about the net immigration, it has

brought you that breaking News, hit a new high, according to the

Office for National Statistics. If figure stands at 336,000 in the year

to June, that is a jump figure stands at 336,000 in the year

last year, and that means the government's targets are slipping

even further away. -- on last year. Our home affairs correspondent has

more, these figures will not be very welcome to the government? No, they

won't be welcome news to the government, they have a target to

get net migration down to the tens of thousands, below 100,000 in other

words, by 2020, the target they had before the election, which they

failed to hit them. They are failing to hit it now, according to these

new figures, 336,000, that is up slightly in the last few months. But

up considerably over the past year. The good news for the government,

that increase in net migration appears to be slowing, and that is

the 1 ray of light. The difficulty for the government, that net

migration increase is driven by two factors, immigration, up slightly,

around 20,000, they don't have much control about people leaving the UK,

and immigration, and the immigration control about people leaving the UK,

rise is principally driven by people coming from other EU countries to

work in Britain. Presumably some of those people are arriving because of

Britain's relatively buoyant economy, and that is the kind of

flip side of the good economic news that we were hearing about

yesterday, people are coming here to find jobs, but that is driving

immigration up. Danny, thanks for joining us.

The Prime Minister has said it is time to extend the air strike

campaign against Islamic State, into Syria. He said the threats to our

people are such that we cannot afford to stand aside. He will make

the case to MPs very shortly and we will be discussing the possible

impact later on. It is late November, don't get your hopes up,

but it is time for the weather forecast.

You are looking lovely today, I have to say. Thank you. We are going to

start by looking at what is happening in America, we do have

unusually a great big hurricane and yesterday this hurricane was a

category one and today it is a category four, is running parallel

with the coastline and it will turn and head towards north-west Mexico,

and that will be late tomorrow. As it does, it will lose its hurricane

status, it is being ripped apart by the winds aloft, it will be a

tropical storm, and it will still be windy, but the rain will be a real

feature, there will be torrential rain in a short amount of time which

could lead to flooding. It is Thanksgiving in America today, and

we have got more wet weather, see this line here, what is happening,

this is what we call a convergence zone, we are dragging in this air,

and the Gulf of Mexico is around 27 Celsius, and it is clashing with

this cold air coming down from the Rockies, we have this big line of

torrential rain, thunderstorms, and the northern edge, and also some

snow. That could lead to disruption. It is Thanksgiving, Black Friday, a

big shopping day in America tomorrow leading into the weekend. Some

parts, from Texas to Michigan, they could have as much of as three days

of this flooding. It makes our weather look quite nice by

comparison, although it is not very nice. It is lovely to see you. What

we're looking at, in the UK, something more unsubtle,

temperatures in America, 13 Celsius, but we could top the New York

temperature in Aberdeen, we could see 15 degrees. We have had a cold

start to the day in the East, but for the rest of us it has been a

mild start, also fairly cloudy. Some brighter breaks. We still have

some, eastern parts of Scotland and eastern England, but for others the

breaks will fill in. Plenty of cloud this morning, across the north and

west, we have low cloud and dank conditions, and also hill fog, and

showery outbreaks of rain and drizzle moving to the East. Through

the day we have more rain, across Northern Ireland and western

Scotland and into western parts of England and Wales. This is the

afternoon picture, more rain, and all of this rain across Scotland,

further east, that is pretty good, we could hit 15 degrees, but we hang

on the mist and Merck across western England, Wales, even the South of

England. 11 and 12, not very windy, just a light breeze, and for the

Midlands and into the South East, just showers and drizzle, but here

and there we will have sunny spells. Into the evening and overnight, it

is a murky picture, plenty of cloud around, and again hill fog and a

band of more persistent rain coming our way with strengthening winds

across the North West. As a result, it will not be very cold overnight,

and we start tomorrow and the note once again, a lot of cloud, murky

conditions, especially in the West but not exclusively. And then the

heavy and persistent rain sinking South, it will be accompanied by

squally wins, sudden gusts of strong winds, and ahead of this,

comparatively mild -- squally winds. Although behind the band of rain,

for Scotland and Northern Ireland, we returned to sunshine and showers,

increasingly they will be wintry, especially over the hills and also

the mountains. As we go in through Friday night, some of that will get

down to lower levels, but by Saturday it will retreat back into

the hills and mountains. Picking up the band of rain, the cold weather

front, it continues to Friday into Saturday, to move down to the

south-east, eventually clearing. Opening the gates for more windy

conditions, as you can see from the proximity of the isobars, and an

array of Atlanta fronts coming our way. -- Atlantique. We have a clue

weekend, it will also be windy, for much of the weekend, some with

gales, even severe gales with exposure, and there will be rain,

but also sunny spells. Unsettled, probably sums it up quite nicely.

Hello, welcome to the programme if you've just joined us.

David Cameron will attempt to persuade MPs that

the UK should join in with air strikes against the Islamic State

terror group in Syria, but what's the military case for action?

We will bring you his statement live in about half an hour.

As the Chancellor promises to give a hand to families hoping to get

a foot on the housing ladder, we'll find out what some

of those prospective homeowners make of the measures revealed yesterday.

David Cameron is to set out his case for the UK to join air

strikes against the Islamic State terror group in Syria.

He has warned that British interests are under threat, he will outline

his case to join a strikes in the next half an hour or so.

Francois Hollande is in Moscow for talks with Vladimir Putin full talks

about the fight against the so-called Islamic. Tensions are high

after Turkey shot down a Russian plane earlier this week.

Turkey has released an audio recording of the warnings it says it

gave a Russian fighter jet before it shot it down by the Syrian

The aircraft was downed on Tuesday after claims it violated Turkish

The Russian President Vladimir Putin is holding talks with the French

President Francois Hollande today in Moscow, to discuss the fight

The Chancellor George Osborne has defended his decision to abandon tax

He said it was not a weakness to listen,

and the improved economy had made it possible to reverse the policy.

Britain needs to move to the lower welfare, higher wage economy, it is

the right thing for our country. We can help families in the transition

to that economy and use the improvement in the public finances

to do that. Net immigration has hit a new high,

336,000 in the 12 months to the end of June, a jump of 82,000. The

Government target is tens of thousands by 2020.

Talks are due to begin at the conciliation service Acas

in an effort to avert industrial action by junior doctors.

The first of three planned walkouts is scheduled for next Tuesday, in

Members of the rock group who survived the Paris terror attack

during their gig at the Bataclan concert hall say they are determined

The Eagles of Death Metal were on stage in the Bataclan theatre

Let's catch up with all the sport now and join Hugh,

and there's some unhappy Manchester United fans this morning.

A disappointing night for both the Manchester sides

Boos reverberated around Old Trafford after a goalless draw

against PSV Eindhoven left their chances of qualifying from

United created few goal-scoring opportunities during the match,

Jesse Lingard missed the best of them.

Manager Louis van Gaal called it the performance disappointing.

They now have to beat Wolfsburg to guarantee a place in the last 16.

Instead, Mario Mandzukic's first-half strike secured

the three points for the Italians as City went down 1-0 in Turin.

Worryingly, goalkeeper Joe Hart went off with a

Well, watching the elite football teams in the country can

be difficult and costly, driving fans to look for tickets online.

The Premier League claim a reported ?8 million worth

of unofficial Manchester United tickets were on sale last season.

We're going to speak to Cathy Long about the issue, she's the Premier

What's the message of your new campaign and what can the Premier

The key message is for people not to get tricked by unofficial and fake

tickets, we want to make sure people are buying from official sources to

make sure they are getting a real ticket.

Fans will say the tickets are expensive,

do clubs have a duty to make sure fans don't need to look elsewhere

The clubs are working hard, they want to make sure people can buy

them efficiently. 96% of tickets are sold out, so people are looking

them efficiently. 96% of tickets are where they can. Clubs are setting up

ticket exchanges so they can buy at face value. Do you feel it is the

Premier League's responsibility to do something to stop the touts?

Outside games, for example? We want to make sure people not having to

buy from touts, the only way they can guarantee getting in properly is

through the official club channels and not to buy tickets from

unofficial sites, because people are buying fake tickets, people are

being sold a reservation number online, turning up and going away

disappointed, not getting into the game.

Now, you may remember yesterday we told

you about 16-year-old Rebekah Tiler, the weightlifter from Keighley who

was competing for the first time as a senior last night in the World

She finished 13th overall, this one of her snatch lifts of 93 kilograms.

Fellow Briton Zoe Smith broke two British records at the event

as she came ninth, that's the best result for a British lifter at

So, congratulations to Zoe, much more to come, I'm sure.

Thank you for joining us this morning,

welcome to the programme if you've just joined us, we're on BBC Two and

Your contributions to this programme and your expertise really is key,

Texts will be charged at the standard network rate.

And of course you can watch the programme online wherever you

are, via the BBC News app or our website, bbc.co.uk/victoria.

In the next hour, Prime Minister David Cameron is to set out the case

all by going to Add Topics app and searching Victoria Derbyshire.

for joining air strikes against Islamic State militants in Syria.

But as it stands, just how many air strikes are being carried out by

coalition forces against so-called Islamic State targets so far?

And how does this compare to air strikes carried out

The US led coalition is bombing Islamic State around the clock.

Each beat represents one hour,

and each blip represents one sortie, one combat mission.

So every time you hear a blip, a coalition aircraft is taking

A little over two sorties every hour of every day

If that sounds relentless, listen to what Serbia faced during

More than five combat sorties every hour of every day.

Here is the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

40 combat missions an hour, for weeks.

The US alone flew 70 combat missions in almost four years.

Again, the effort against Islamic State.

More comments from you, John says, where are the German, Belgian and

other EU countries in this campaign, or are we just USA puppet again?

Lawrence says, let the people decide, not those at Westminster,

like Jeremy Corbyn or the SNP, we would vote to bomb to save the UK

people. Mel says, we must defend our country, what amazes me is that

there are so many countries involved in S strikes and they cannot

eradicate them, is it time for boots on the ground? Chris says, President

Assad is running his country with the firm hand it needs, we should

learn the lesson from Iraq when it comes to deposing those who do not

fit nicely into our apparent ethical ideal. Plenty more comments from you

in the next little while. That go to Norman Smith. We await the Prime

Minister's statement later, but hints as to what he is going to

say? I have here his written statement, that he wants MPs to

read. He has released it ahead of him getting to his feet in 15

minutes, so they can begin to digestive. It is not a token press

release or a quick cut-and-paste, it is 36 pages, detailed argument by Mr

Cameron, setting out his case for why we should go for war, why we

should bomb Islamic State in Syria. When we were talking earlier, I was

flagging up some of the questions he would have to answer, suggesting

there were two difficult questions he would have to answer, who is

going to provide the ground troops to destroy IS and what happens

afterwards with President Assad, going through the report, Mr Cameron

struggling with answers to these questions. On ground troops, he says

that getting other regional powers involved is going to be difficult,

and, in his words, could risk inflaming the conflict. I will give

you the full quote, it will be difficult in Syria, because

President Assad's forces are still fighting against the moderate

opposition, there is no prospect of intervention by an external ground

force, any ground force could risk inflaming the conflict rather than

contributing to a settlement. The judgment that answering the question

on ground troops is still very difficult. The second tough question

was on what happens afterwards, what do we do about President Assad? He

says, and orderly political transition is not possible for as

long as President Assad remains in power. That points to the sort of

gridlock between us and the Russians, because the Russians, they

game plan seems to be to prop up President Assad, our view is he has

to go if there is to be any sort of diplomatic solution. The Prime

Minister seems to be acknowledging there are some tough answers that he

will have to find. Norman, thanks. Our security expert

is so, can you help us through this? Sure, we can boil this down to

basics. Britain is already at war with so-called Islamic State, this

is very different from two years ago, when MPs were presented a very

weak case in Parliament as to whether or not Britain should start

a military conflict with President Assad's forces to punish it for his

perceived role in gassing his own people. At the last minute, that was

voted down, and even America did not do it in the end. This is different,

Britain is all free at war with them in Iraq, they have already carried

out several attempted plots in this country, and so the government's

logic is it is ridiculous to be confined to only half of the soccer

pitch when they have the gamut across Syria and Iraq, the entire

soccer pitch, and they want to extend across that pretty much

nonexistent border between Syria and Iraq. They also looking ahead to a

time when Mosul will be retake on and what is left of Isis will flood

back across the Syrian border and they need to be able to hit them

there. We should be under no illusion of two things, firstly, if

he wins this vote and Britain starts military action against so-called

Isis in Syria, that is not going to end them. Almost nothing will change

overnight. It will make a small difference, Britain's Brimstone

missiles are more accurate than the Americans, but that will not end

Islamic State will stop the other thing, it will make Britain more of

a target than we are already for terrorism, but we are already a

target, but it will increase it. People should have no illusions by

that, they will because for revenge in the way that they have done with

the French. Frank, thanks for joining us. David Cameron's address

to MPs in the House of Commons comes after the Foreign Affairs Committee

report which said the UK should not join Allied bombing in Syria without

a coherent international strategy and IS, but what is the right

strategy? -- on IS. With us are two senior figures with

differing viewpoints, the UK's former ambassador to

Syria Peter Ford and former What would you like to hear from

David Cameron? Peter Ford. First of all, Frank understated the security

risks to the people in this country,... I made it very clear.

risks to the people in this think you understated it, if

me expand. We do not necessarily me expand. We do not necessarily

they react to actions, and me expand. We do not necessarily

why the British tourists were killed in Tunisia, because we were bombing

in Iraq. David Cameron has in Tunisia, because we were bombing

to the number of attempted attacks. in Tunisia, because we were bombing

were actually IS. He in Tunisia, because we were bombing

us, and anyway, maybe some of these were in preparation for what will

follow after the vote. I'm confident that if we vote to go to war the

people of Britain must prepare for carnage on our streets. That is a

serious warning. We have doubts on my left and on my right. I will come

to you in a moment. What you say that David Cameron should say

instead of attacking IS in Syria? There is a good plan on the table

known as the Vienna process, led by the Russians, to arrange a ceasefire

between the Syrian government and willing parties. Such as? This is

for definition by the West, the West have been handed the task of

defining who are the so-called moderates, who do not exist anyway.

They did initially. Hopefully, there will be a C five between these

parties, and these parties will attack IS -- there will be a

ceasefire between. This is a plausible strategy which would

deliver boots on the ground, but without that, David Cameron's

strategy will not work. Lord West, what should the prime ministers say?

In a strange way, the issue of bombing in Syria is a side issue,

the important thing is we do need to destroy Isil. We are at risk anyway

and we know from the websites, they are encouraging people to attack us

on a daily basis, and if you look at Isil, I first came across them in

2003, in Jordan, they are similar to Al-Qaeda, and we were attacked

before we bombed anyone like that, and able keep attacking us. We are

already bombing them in Iraq, to think that this will add to the

threat to us, that is wrong, we are already under threat. I do believe

David Cameron and the government have been semi-detached from this

until recently, it is of the Russians getting involved, we have

not had an overarching strategy of how to defeat Isil and stop the War

in Syria, and what we should have done is made huge pressure to get a

contact group formed, the work that has been done in Vienna, to talk to

Iran, for example, and to talk to Assad, he's a fact on the ground. He

is there. You might be a butcher, but we have got to talk to him. What

have we got to say? We need to get him into the diplomatic arena, to

look at what happens in the future, and then we need to think about

massive input into stopping money flows, massive input into stopping

oil, even if we have to destroy oil wells, to stop the oil flows, we

need a massive propaganda battle against them, we can win that. We

have good people in that area. We need to increase the military tempo,

armed the Peshmerga properly. And the sequential campaign, we defeat

them in Iraq first of all, we have the Iraqi army which is looking

better, we need to turn the Sunni tribes onto our site, they helped us

defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq. -- side. We need... The bombing, in a sense is a

marginal issue. I want to get to a position of clarity, you clearly

both regard IS, Da'ish, as the principal aim, so you both agree on

that? It is a question of how you get to the point where they are no

longer as effective as you would argue they are at the moment

question not Peter Ford. I agree there are many things we could be

doing, stopping the money flows, stopping the oil, going to Turkey,

by the way, one of our allies, they need to put pressure on Saudi Arabia

and Turkey, to stop them funnelling billions into the conflict. Would

you argue with that? Turkey are part of the Sunni Shia issue, to be

honest. There is a Sunni agenda and that is a problem. We can do these

good things, stopping the oil, the money, without bombing, bombing will

add nothing militarily, nothing significant, even the government

admits it will not be a game changer, but the proposition is that

we indulge in some recreational bombing of Raqqa. You say that is

not a game changer. Can I just say this, hundreds of people's lives

will be put at risk I can see the body parts being picked up, we have

got to approach this in all seriousness, this is not a game. It

is not recreational bombing, there was a need for air strikes when it

Isil were beginning to do it to me when in Iraq, that did stop them,

and I think using air power, and when we have finished the Iraqi bit,

we will need air power, and when we have finished the Iraqi bit, we will

need airpower and special forces and also using troops on the ground,

people like Assad, some of the democratic force on our side, I

would like to see the UN more involved and I would like to see

Syria partitioned and have a UN mandate of eastern Syria, Egyptian,

Jordanian, maybe, nonsectarian, something like that, but very

difficult to do. Frank, picked up where we are. Much of this is about

perception in the Middle East and the way things are perceived,

because this is a very public vote which will be held, very public case

being made, this will be picked up definitely by Isis and they will be

watching the way this goes, and they will probably put together videos

that take excerpts from the debate in the House of Commons, they will

look at statements which are made and they will use that for

propaganda purposes. I still maintain that there will be a step

up in terrorist threat, and I think there is already a terrorist threat

from so-called Islamic State, they are linked to the last seventh

thwarted attacks, we are lucky it has not happened, but they will see

what is going on in the Commons and they will see the debate in Britain

and they will use it for propaganda purposes. We have a few common,

bombing alone will not work, says one, we have agreed on that. Another

one says, they cannot beat Da'ish in Iraq, when they have the backing of

Iraqis. What about that? I do think there needs to be a military part of

this campaign, we are already bombing Isil in Iraq, it makes no

sense to not do the same in Syria. The addition of our aircraft is not

immense, we are part of a coalition of 60 aircraft. So it won't make an

enormous difference Britain not instantly, -- enormous difference?

Not initially, but we are better at this, we are more accurate. Do you

agree? After the vote, and whether or not we are ready to bomb, this

country will not be put on a higher state of alert, because if we are,

that proves the point we are walking towards a higher threat and we are

walking eyes wide shut, and if we are not going to raise the alert, it

is criminally negligent. We are at a state of severe, it is great that we

continue our lives as we do, severe means we are highly likely to have

an attack. If you went to a heart doctor and he said you are highly

likely to die, you would be pretty focused. The only next step up is

one which means there is an imminent attack, and to go to that you have

to have specific evidence of an attack which is being formulated and

pull together, and if there is one, they would deal with it, but at the

moment we are basically still likely to have an attack, and every day

they are asking their followers to kill us. Go to their websites. Look

at the map, Lord West made the reference that there is still a

border between Syria and Iraq, but no one near the border pays any

attention to it. So there is a lack of logic, if you like, if you bomb

on one side, and not the other. This is superficial, the difference is

between Iraq and Syria, the differences are great, Syria is a

tile baby, you pick it up and you will get heart, you are getting

sucked into the mire. -- you will get heart. We heard people early on

the programme lusting after getting British boots on the ground, this is

where we are headed. He was talking about boots from somewhere, not

British boots, and you would argue that will be inevitable, the

endgame? Once you have destroyed Isil, that is the first in, we have

got to try and stop the war, and that will involve Assad and others

and it will be a messy business, but we need a contact group, and we need

to establish that, I think something like split into two big zones with

the UN involved, that will not be easy, but we have got to use

military power against Isil, and part of that is bombing, and I

believe the UK should play its part. We are under great threat now.

They're with me, we are about to cross to the Commons, but thanks for

spotting the debate which will no doubt continue in the House of

Commons. Norman Smith is there for us at Westminster as we await David

Cameron, what is happening? It is packed inside the chamber,

this is a big moment. What is interesting, over the weekend there

were various briefings suggesting Mr Cameron was going to say, do we want

to be like Churchill or Neville Chamberlain, and emotive argument. I

think he wants to take some of the emotion out of it and make a much

more level-headed argument, I Russian opposition. That was the

impression I got reading that 36 page document which he has prepared

for MPs so they can read it when they go into the chamber. It is

detailed, closely argued, the case for why we should be involved in

bombing, there is not much rhetoric in it. Actually, at the end of the

day, that may be more effective if he wants to persuade MPs to back

bombing. Let's cross into the chamber, because he is speaking.

The report on extending British military operations to Syria. I have

done so in copies -- and copies of my response have been available. The

committee produced a comprehensive report which asked a series of

important questions. I have tried to listen very carefully to the

questions and views expressed by members on all sides of the house. I

want to try and answer all of the relevant questions today. There are

different ways of putting them, but they boil down to this, why, why

ask, why now, is what we are contemplating legal, where are the

ground troops to help us meet our objectives, what is the strategy

that brings together everything that we are doing, especially in Syria,

is there an end to this conflict, and is there a plan for what

follows? Let me deal with each question as directly as

follows? Let me deal with each First, why. The reason for acting is

follows? Let me deal with each the very direct threat that Isil

poses to our country and way of life, they have attacked Ankara,

Beirut and Paris, as well as the likely blowing up of a Russian plane

with 224 people on board. They likely blowing up of a Russian plane

already taken the lives of British hostages and inspired the worst

terrorist attack against British people since the 7th of July on the

beaches of Tunisia. They have repeatedly tried to attack us right

here in Britain. In the last 12 months, we have disrupted no fewer

than seven terrorist plots to attack the UK. Every one of which was

either linked to Isil or inspired by their propaganda. I am in no doubt

that it is in our national interest for action to be taken to stop

them. Stopping them means taking action in Syria, because it is rack

that is their headquarters. White is? My first responsibility as Prime

Minister and our first job in this house is to keep the British people

safe. We have the assets to do that, and we can significantly

extend the capabilities of the international coalition forces. That

is one reason why members of the international coalition, including

in the DOTMAC and Francois Armand, one Briton to stand with them in

joining air strikes in Syria as well as Iraq. These are our closest

allies and they want our help. Partly this is about our

capabilities, as we are showing in Iraq the RAF can carry out what is

called dynamic targeting, our pilots can strike the most difficult

targets at a rapid pace and with extraordinary precision and provide

vital battle winning close as support to local forces on the

ground. We have the brimstone precision missile system which

enables us to strike accurately with minimum collateral damage, something

that even the Americans do not have. The raptor pod on our Tornado

aircraft has no rival, currently gathering 60% of the coalition's

entire tactical reconnaissance in Iraq while being equipped for

strikes. Our repercussions are providing up to 30% of the

intelligence in Syria, they are not currently able to use their missile

systems. We also have the proven ability to sustain our operations,

not just for weeks, but, if necessary, for months. Of course we

have these capabilities, but the most important answer to the

question, why us, is I believe even more fundamental, and it is this, we

should not be content with outsourcing our security to our

allies. If we believe that action can help protect us, with our allies

we should be part of that action, not standing aside from it. From

this moral point comes a fundamental question, if we will not act now

when our friend and ally France has been struck in this way, our allies

in the world can be forgiven for asking, if not now, when? That leads

to the next question, why now? The first answer is because of the great

danger that Isil poses to our security, which has clearly

intensified in recent weeks. There are additional reasons why action

now is so important. Look at what has changed not just the attack in

Paris, but the world has come together and agreed a UN Security

Council resolution. There is a real political process underway. This

could lead to a new Government in Syria, with whom we can work to

defeat Isil for good. As I explained yesterday, we can not wait for that

to be complete before we begin acting to degrade Isil and reducing

their capability to attack us. Let's be clear about the military

objectives that we are pursuing. We want to defeat the terrorists by

dismantling their networks, stopping their funding, targeting their

training camps and taking out those plotting terror attacks against the

UK, that there is a broader objective, for as long as Isil can

peddle the myth of a so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria, it will

be a rallying call for Islamist extremist all around the world, and

that makes us less safe. Just as we have reduced the scale and size of

the so-called caliphate in Iraq, increasingly pushing it out of

Iraq, so we need to do the same thing in Syria. Indeed, another

reason for action now is that the success in Iraq in squeezing the

so-called caliphate is put at risk I our failure to act in Syria. This

border is not recognised by Isil, and we hamper our efforts if we stop

acting when we reached the Syrian border. When we come to the

question, why now, we have to ask ourselves whether the risks of

inaction are greater than the risks of taking action. Every day we fail

to act is a day when temporary macro can go stronger and more plots can

be undertaken. That is why all the advice I have received, the military

advice, diplomatic advice, security advice, all says, yes, the risks of

inaction are greater. Some of our specifically -- some have asked if

taking action could make us more of a target for attacks. Let me tell

the house the judgment of the director-general of the security

service and the chairman of the joint intelligence committee is that

the UK is already in the top tier of countries that Isil is targeting. I

am clear the only way to deal with that reality is to address the

threat we face and to do so now. Let me turn to the question of legality.

It is a long-standing constitutional convention that we do not publish

our formal legal advice, but the document I published today shows in

some detail the clear legal basis for military action against Isil in

Syria. It is founded on the right of self defence as recognised in

Article 51 of the UN Charter. The right of self defence may be

exercised individually, where it is necessary to the UK's own defence,

and collectively, in the defence of our friends and allies. The main

basis of the global coalition's actions against Isil in Syria is the

collective self defence of Iraq, Iraq has a legitimate Government,

which we support and help. There is a solid basis of evidence on which

to conclude that there is a direct link between the present and

activities of Isil in Syria and their ongoing attack in Iraq, and

that the President Assad regime is unwilling and or unable to take

action necessary to prevent Isil's continued attack on Iraq or attacks

on us. It is clear that Isil's campaign against the UK and our

allies has reached the level of an armed attack, such that force may

lawfully be used in self defence to prevent further atrocities being

committed by Isil. This is further underscored by the unanimous

adoption of UN Security Council resolution to 249. We shall be clear

about what this means and what it says. The whole world came

together, including all five members of the security council, to agree

this resolution unanimously. The resolution states that Isil

constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to

international peace and security. It calls for member states to take, I

quote, all necessary measures to prevent and suppress terrorist acts

committed specifically by Isil. Crucially, it says we should, I

quote, eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant

parts of Iraq and Syria. Turning to the question of which ground forces

will assist us, in Iraq, the answer is clear, we have the Iraqi security

forces and the Kurdish patch murder. In Syria, it is more complicated,

but as the report I am publishing shows, we believe there are around

70,000 Syrian opposition fighters are principally the Free Syrian

Army, who do not belong to extremist groups, and with whom we can

coordinate attacks on Isil. There are the Kurdish armed groups who

also have shown themselves capable of taking territory, holding

territory and administering it, and releasing the suffering that the

civilian population had endured under Isil control. The Syrian Kurds

have successfully defended Kurdish areas in northern Syria and retaken

territory around the city of -- the city. Moderate Sunni Arabs have

defended territory north of Aleppo and they have stopped Isil attempts

to capture the main border crossing with Turkey and sweeping into it led

province. In the South, the southern front of the Free Syrian Army has

consolidated its control over significant areas and has worked to

prevent terrorists from operating. These people I have talked about our

ground troops, they need our help, when they get it, they succeed, so

we should do more to help them from the air. Those who ask questions

about ground troops are right to do so. The full answer cannot be

achieved until there is a new Syrian Government that represents all the

Syrian people are not just Sunni, Shia and Alan White, but Christians

and others. It is this new Government who will be the natural

partners for our forces in defeating Isil for good.

partners for our forces in defeating simply from the air or purely

partners for our forces in defeating military action alone. It requires a

full political settlement. military action alone. It requires a

question is, can we military action alone. It requires a

settlement before we take action? Again, my answer is, no, we can't.

On the Again, my answer is, no, we can't.

have a comprehensive plan to prevent Again, my answer is, no, we can't.

and foil plots at home and also to address the poisonous extremist

ideology that is the root cause of the threat that we face, our support

for the diplomatic and political process. That is the second point,

many cross this house said how vital it is to have all of the key

regional players around the table, including Iran and Russia. We are

now seeing Iran and Saudi Arabia sitting down around the same table

with America and Russia, as well as France, Turkey and Britain. All of

us working towards the transition to a new Government in Syria. The third

pillar of the military action I am describing to degrade Isil and

reduce the threat they pose. It is working in Iraq and I believe it can

work in Syria. The fourth pillar is immediate humanitarian support, but

even more crucially, longer term stabilisation. Of course this house

has heard many times that Britain has so far given over ?1.1 billion,

by far the largest commitment of any European country, second only to the

USA, this is helping to reduce the need for Syrians to attempt the

perilous journey to Europe. The donor conference I am posting in

February, I believe that will help further. The house is rightly also

asking more questions about whether there will be a proper post-conflict

reconstruction effort to support a new Syrian Government when it

emerges. Britain's answer is absolutely, yes. I can tell the

house that Britain will be prepared to contribute at least another ?1

billion for this task. All these elements, counterterrorism,

political and diplomatic, monetary and humanitarian, they need to

happen together to achieve a long-term solution in Syria. We know

that peace is a process, not an event. It is clear that it cannot be

achieved through a military assault on Raqqa alone, it also requires the

removal of President Assad through a political transition, but I am also

clear of the sequencing. This is an Isil first strategy. What of the end

goal? The initial objective is to damage Isil and reduce its capacity

to do us harm. I believe this can in time lead to its eradication. No one

predicted their rise, we should not accept that it is somehow impossible

to bring them to an end. They are not what the people of Iraq and

Syria want, they do not represent the true religion of Islam, they are

losing ground in Iraq following losses will stop we are not naive to

the complicity of the task. It will require patience and persistence.

Our work will not be complete until we have reached our true end goal,

having governments in both Iraq and Syria which can command the

confidence of all their peoples. In Syria, that means a Government

without President Assad. As Ban Ki-Moon has said, a missile can kill

a terrorist, but only good governance can kill terrorism. This

applies to both Iraq and Syria. Terrible mistakes were made in the

aftermath of the Iraq war, in dismantling the state and the

institutions of that country, and we must never make those mistakes

again. The political process in Syria will deliver new leadership

and that is the transition we must support. We are not in the business

of dismantling the Syrian state or its institutions, and in Libya the

state and its institutions have been hollowed out after 40 years of

dictatorship. When the dictatorship when, the institutions collapsed,

but the big difference between Libya and Syria, in Syria this time we

have firm international commitment from all the backers of a future

Syrian government, around the table at the Vienna talks, and the

commitment is clear, to preserve and develop the state in Syria and allow

a new representative government to govern for everyone. Mr Speaker, I

have attempted to answer the main question is, why, why now, why us,

is it legal, what are the ground forces, is there a strategy, what is

the end point, and what is the plan for reconstruction? I know this is a

very complex situation and I know members on all sides will have other

questions which I look forward to trying to answer this morning. One

will be about the confused and confusing situation in Syria

regarding Russia's intervention, and let me reassure the house, the

American led combined air operations Centre has a memorandum of

understanding with the Russians, this enables daily contact and

pragmatic military planning to make sure that all coalition forces are

safe and this would include our brave RAF pilots. Another question

will be about whether we are taking sides in a Sunni versus Shia

conflict, this is not the case. Isil is a predominant Lee's Sunni

organisation, but they are killing Sunni and Shia people like --

predominantly. Our vision is one government in all the interests of

the people, and we welcome the presence of states with both Sunni

and Shia people, and their support for international action, against

City, and towards a diplomatic solution in Syria. -- against Isil.

Regarding the financing of Isil, the document sets it out, it mentions

ceiling borders, and enforcing sanctions to stop people trading

with City, but they are able to generate income through control of

territory -- people trading with Isil. We will try to squeeze their

finances wherever we can, but it is the rolling back of their territory

which will cut off their finances. The complex questions, two of the

most, are these, first, will acting against Isil actually help to bring

about transition? I believe the answer is yes, not least because

there can't be genuine transition without maintaining the territorial

integrity of Syria, and Isil completely deny their current action

this integrity. Destroying Isil destroys the moderate forces and

they will be crucial to the future of Syria, second, our view is that

Assad must go, and help in the fight against Isil, or as some have

claimed, does this confuse the picture? The expert advice is clear,

we will not beat Isil if we waver in our view that Assad must go. We

cannot get Sunni opinion if we were to suddenly change our position, and

in the end it comes back to this one main question. Should we take

action? Or those that say that we need a diplomatic solution, and a

transition to a new government in Syria, they are right -- all those.

Working with a new representative government is the way to eradicate

Isil in Syria in the long term, but can we wait for that to happen

before we take military action? I say we can't. Let me be clear, there

will not be a vote in this house unless there is a clear majority for

action, because we will not hand a publicity coup to Isil. I'm also

clear that any motion we bring before this House will explicitly

recognise that military action is not the whole answer. Proud as I am

of our incredible services, I will not pretend or overstate the

significance of our potential contribution, and I will not

understate the complexity of this issue. Nor the risks that are

inevitably involved in any military action, but we do face a fundamental

threat to our security. We cannot wait for a political transition, we

have got to hit these terrorists in their heartlands right now. And we

must not shirk our responsibility for security or hand it to others.

Throughout our history, the United Kingdom has stood up to defend our

values and our way of life, and we can and we must do so again. And I

commend this statement to the House. Mr Jeremy Corbyn. I would like to

thank the Prime Minister for providing in advance copy of his

statement, which I got earlier today -- an. After the despicable attacks

in Paris a fortnight ago, the whole House will agree that our first

priority has to be the security of people in this country in the

future. When we consider the Prime Minister's case for military action

the issue of whether what he proposes strengthens or undermines

our security must be front and centre stage of our minds. There's

no doubt that the so-called Islamic State group has imposed a reign

terror and millions in Iraq, Syria, and now in Libya. -- on millions.

Everything they stand for his country to everything -- everything

they stand for is contrary to everything we have fought for. The

question is now whether extending the UK bombing from Iraq to Syria is

likely to reduce or increase that threat. And whether it will counter

or spread the terror campaign Isil is waging in the Middle East. With

that in mind, I would like to put seven questions to the Prime

Minister. First, does the Prime Minister believed that extending air

strikes to Syria, which is already being bombed by the United States,

France and Russia and other powers, will make a significant military

impact on the ground, which are so far seen City as lose territory?

Does he expect it will be a war winning strategy -- Isil win as well

as lose territory? Some other states have halted that the dissipation,

like Canada. Is it the view of the Prime Minister, that the campaign

against Isil held areas can be successful without ground forces? If

not, does he successful without ground forces? If

Kurdish forces or the relatively marginal Free Syrian Army would be

Kurdish forces or the relatively in itching to back-up Isil held

territory to in itching to back-up Isil held

the campaign was successful question mark is it more likely that the

jihadist forces would take over. Third, without credible or

acceptable ground forces, isn't the logic of an intensified air campaign

mission creep and western boots on the ground? Can he rule out the

deployment of British ground forces to Syria? Fourth, does the Prime

Minister believed that the United Nations security resolution, two to

49, gives clear and unambiguous authorisation for UK air strikes?

What co-ordinated action with other United Nations member states has

there been under the terms of the resolution, to cut off funding, oil

revenues, and arms supplies from Isil into the territory it currently

holds? In the absence of any co-ordinated UN strategy, does he

believe that more monetary force in Syria could increase the risks of

dangerous incidents such as the shooting down of a Russian aircraft

by Turkish forces this week? -- military force. There, how does the

prime is to think the extension of UK bombing would contribute to a

comprehensive political settlement of the Syrian Civil War which is

widely believed to be the only way to make sure the defeat of Isil in

the country? The Vienna conference was a good step forward last

weekend, but it has some way to go. What assessment has the Prime

Minister being given about the likely impact of British air strikes

in Syria and the threat of terrorist attacks in Britain? -- on the

threat. What impact does he believe an intensified air campaign will

have on civilian casualties in the ice is held territory and the wider

Syria refugee crisis which is so enormous and so appalling? -- Isis

held. In the light enormous and so appalling? -- Isis

military intervention from the West in recent years, including

military intervention from the West Prime Minister accept that UK

bombing of Syria could Prime Minister accept that UK

what President Obama calls unintended consequences? And the

lasting defeat of Isil can unintended consequences? And the

secured by Syrians and their forces within the region. Can I thank

right honourable gentleman for his questions and let me say, I very

right honourable gentleman for his much respect his

right honourable gentleman for his about these issues and his quite

correct caution before committing to any of these actions, but I do

believe there is a good answer any of these actions, but I do

the seven absolutely rig questions he has asked. First of all, in terms

of extending air strikes, would there be a significant military

of extending air strikes, would impact? I try to give a flavour of

the things we think we would be able impact? I try to give a flavour of

to do, but in many ways it is worth listening to our closest allies, to

the Americans and the French, who want us to take part, not just for

the cover that provides, but because of the capabilities that we bring,

and I think it is worth listening very closely to what they say. My

answer, yes, we would make a military difference. Second, he is

right to raise the issue of ground forces, and I tried to tackle this

in my statement. I would guide the House that there are many who want

to play down the existence and the role of the Free Syrian Army, but

our information and intelligence is that there are at least 70,000

moderate Sunni forces that are able to help, and we can see the help

they have been to help, and we can see the help

examples I gave it my statement. He asked about boots on the ground, we

are not deploying British combat forces and we are not going to

deploy combat forces, and we think the presence of western boots on the

ground in that way would be counter-productive, that is one of

the things we have all collectively across the House learned from

previous conflicts, and we don't want to make that mistake again. And

we don't want to make that mistake again. And we don't want to make

that mistake again. Whether the England resolution is unambiguous, I

believe it is, the language is very clear and that is why I quoted it in

some detail -- whether the UN resolution. He mentioned the

sanctions and embargoes and squeezing the finances of Isil,

there was a resolution in January and we will continue to support

those measures. He asked about dangerous incidents and the

potential for those, and as I explained, there is a beacon

friction between what Russia is doing and what the coalition is

doing. Obviously, what happened in Turkey, we have got to get to the

bottom of that, but we have permission to overfly Turkish

airspace and Turkey is our ally in this conflict. He asked a crucial

question about whether what we are planning will help with transition,

and I think the answer is a very strong yes. The existence of Isil or

Da'ish, with their so-called caliphate, is to deny the

territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, so we cannot have a future

Syria with the existence of this caliphate taking over such a large

amount of its territory, and I'd also say that when we look to the

future Syria, it will need the involvement of moderate Sunni people

in the future of the country, and the more we can help them, the

better the chance of transition is. He asked the important question

about the impact of action and the threat level to this country, and

that is why I quoted and I had their permission to do so, I cleared my

statement with them, the chairman of the joint intelligence committee and

the head of MI5, their view is that we are already at the very highest

level we could be in service of threats from Isil. -- we could be in

terms of. This is about learning the lessons of Iraq, we have this

architecture of a joint intelligence committee chaired by a senior

official who has the independent view and I cleared every word of my

statement with them. On the issue of civilian casualties, which is

important, I believe the truth of the matter is this, the British

capabilities are one of the best ways to reduce civilian casualties,

and in a year and three months of the action we have taken in Iraq,

there have been no reports of civilian casualties and we believe

we have some of the most accurate weapons known to man. Extending our

activities into Syria is likely to riches civilian -- reduce civilian

caddies. Finally he asked about unintended consequences, we can have

a debate about the action we have taken around the world in recent

years, but in my view we have got to recognise that this poisonous

narrative of Islamist extremism is a battle for