02/12/2015 Daily Politics

Welcome to this Daily Politics Special, live

from Westminster, where MPs will spend today debating and then voting

on whether Britain should bomb Islamic State targets in Syria.

Normal parliamentary business has been put aside today.

Instead MPs will spend over 10 hours debating whether to step up military

operations against Islamic State jihadists by extending air strikes

The Prime Minister, who set out his case

for strikes last week, is confident he'll get the majority he wants.

Otherwise he wouldn't be having the vote.

But last night, he was condemned for telling Conservative rebels

they should not vote with Jeremy Corbyn and what he called

Labour described the remarks as a "contemptible slur".

The Labour leader says opposition to war is growing.

And that the Prime Minister's proposals didn't stack up.

But he's been accused of bullying his own MPs

The first British jets could be over Syria as early as tomorrow morning,

if as expected, MPs vote in favour of action.

The PM has claimed 70,000 supposedly moderate Syrian

And what do you, the public, make of it all?

One new poll suggests millions of British voters have turned

against airstrikes in the last few days, though there's

Conservative Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, and former Labour

MPs will spend over 10 hours debating the military,

moral and political case for striking IS targets in Syria,

culminating in a vote at around about 10 o'clock tonight.

A vote which David Cameron is expected to win.

We can't hide from these people, we can't pull the quilt over our heads.

They have killed British citizens in Sousse in Tunisia, we have thwarted

seven Isil inspired or Isil directed terrorist plots on the streets

The Russian plane that was downed at Sharm el-Sheikh, almost certainly by

an Isil bomb, could easily have been a British plane carrying British

They are going after us and the only way we can protect

ourselves is fighting back, hitting back at them, degrading

them, reducing their capacity to plan and plot attacks against us.

The Prime Minister will almost certainly win his vote but has there

been a sense that arguments have been slipping away from him? I don't

think so. When you come to a point of decision, some people who are

undecided are a bit nervous about committing themselves to something

that will involve loss of life, that is a natural human reaction. The

public also appreciate this is the UK joining the rest of the

international community who are already carrying out this exercise

and is no conceivable argument for saying it is proper to bomb Isis in

Iraq but not the same in Syria when Isis themselves don't recognise a

border between the countries. The Prime Minister has been trying to

build a big majority. He has been conciliatory towards those on the

other side who have some doubts. It didn't help when he decided to

describe some of the people who don't agree with him as terrorist

sympathisers. I think he realises that themselves, it was an

unfortunate comment that came out, which was not appropriate and eyes

as Becky will be the first to acknowledge that. -- I suspect. Some

Labour MPs seem to be under some pretty unpleasant pressure.

Absolutely and it is disgusting, I bought is happening. Why has this

become so toxic in the Labour Party? Sadly the whole issue has become

about Jeremy Corbyn, the leadership of the party, rather than focusing

on this most serious issues. Both parties are divided to some extent,

the Tories left so but they have their rebels also. Labour seem to be

deeply divided on this, all over the place. Indeed, you could say that.

It is right to say there are passions on both sides of the

argument which is understandable and absolutely right because it is so

serious. But what is a disgrace is the way people are being harried and

threatened by colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party but also

by party members up and down the country. Do you think this will, in

the end, come to an issue for some MPs, to put it another way, are you

aware of Labour MPs who are frightened of facing deselection as

a result of positions they might take? Yes, I am, and I feel

especially for those new members of the House of Commons. People who

have been there for five or ten years, their skins tend to be

thicker but for new members it is a very... It is very difficult. They

are under pressure. It is hard to see how Labour puts itself together

after this. If you work on the assumption that how Mr Corbyn has

handled the event is how he will handle things in the future. There

are some wise people in the party who I hope will be working with him

and counselling him and there are people like Hilary Benn who clearly

take a different view to Jeremy Corbyn but I know that Hillary and

many people around Jeremy, what they want to do is ensure that is a

culture of respect after this vote. Whichever way people vote, they

should respect the opinions of others. In reality, what is at stake

today is a technical shift, a tactical shift, and yet it has

become one of these great occasions of Parliament. It is a huge vote, if

the government was to lose, it could well fall. How have we come to this?

How has a military shift, with us already bombing in Iraq, how has

this become such a totemic issue? Because the government was defeated

two years ago. Not on an identical vote but something sufficiently

similar that this would be seen as a reversal of that position. When the

House of Commons did that, it had a big impact around the world. You

have to think back to the 1930s when Oxford union students said they

would not fight for King and country and everybody said that was

decadent. The people who voted against the government two years ago

were not in that situation but it had real damage intervals of our

diplomatic clout oversees. And if we all agree that the ultimate solution

is not just the destruction of Islamic State but a political

solution to the Civil War in Syria, Britain must be part of that

initiative. You cannot opt out of the military component and expects

to have weight when the diplomacy is to be addressed. Have you come to a

view on this issue? I'm glad I don't have to vote on this. It finally

balanced but I come down against air strikes in the end. Because? The

arguments which are put about the need to have ground forces from the

region, the fact that the Prime Minister says there are 70,000

people who will be those ground forces, I am not sure they would be

a coherent force. Yes, air strikes together with ground forces have

worked in Iraq but the situation is very different, there is a standing

army and a government that invited people in. The ground Force issue is

extremely important and what also bothers me, many if the potential

ground forces are people who are, understandably, fighting against

President Assad. And the Russians are fighting against those forces.

We are getting into very deep waters. The potential ground forces

are seen by many as a nonsense. There are two groups of anti-Assad

rebels who are not Islamic State. One is in the south, the other in

the North and they have divided into 50 or 60 different groups, no way

are they a coherent force. But there is an answer to what we have been

saying. Air power, even in northern Syria, has already helped because

the Kurds, for example, were able to hold on to Kobani, which Islamic

State would desperate to get, and they were prevented a combination of

the Kurds on the ground and air power. You have chosen the one group

that is coherent! That is the Kurds and they are very geographically

specific. There is no disagreement that in the rest of the Islamic

State area, you will not drive them out of territory by air power alone.

The problem we are to address is that will not be resolved overnight

-- have two address. So do we leave Isis untouched in their own main

command centres? It is not just bombing individuals, it is their

convoys, for example. With respect to you, that was not the question.

My question was, do you accept that the so-called 70,000 ground forces

that the Prime Minister has mentioned can be in no way regarded

as a coherent force? They are certainly not a coherent force. If

you add up the various resistance groups, there are 70000 and some are

quite effective, for example Kneer the Jordanian border. -- near the

Jordanian border. They have had local victories but you are right. I

hope the government does not think there is a single body of 70,000

that can be used at this moment. Let's remind ourselves what MPs will

be voting on and debating later and how does the Parliamentary

arithmetic add up. We won't know the exact numbers until after the vote.

The motion before the Commons today starts by saying so-called

Islamic State poses a "direct threat to the United Kingdom".

It notes that "military action is only one component

of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria".

Specific reference is made to "requests from France, the US,

and regional allies for UK military assistance".

And the motion reiterates the government's commitment

"not to deploy UK troops in ground combat operations".

Finally it provides that the House supports military action,

"specifically air strikes, exclusively against Isil in Syria",

and offers wholehearted support to the British armed forces.

In 2013 the government lost a vote to bomb forces in Syria loyal

As a result, David Cameron's been reluctant to bring forward

a new vote in the current climate because of the risk of losing,

but he's confident that support has been "growing" and he can win now.

We won't know the exact voting breakdown until after the vote,

but it appears that between ten to 15 of the Conservatives' 330 MPs

will defy the Prime Minister and oppose air strikes.

Figures this morning suggested around 50 of Labour's 231 MPs would

support the government, but the BBC has learned Jeremy Corbyn's team are

now assuming around 90 Labour MPs will vote for the motion.

The SNP have signalled that their 54 MPs still taking the party

But the Liberal Democrats and the DUP with eight MPS each will

Let's talk now to the Conservative MP, John Baron,

John Baron, you are going to vote against air strikes, how did you

feel being described by the Prime Minister as a terrorist sympathiser?

I will not come at a private meeting but having served in Northern

Ireland as a platoon commander, those who vote against air strikes

are not terrorist sympathisers -- I cannot comment. Did you think that

language was appropriate and helpful when we are talking about issues

this serious? There has been a lot of emotive language, I have been

called a pacifist and I have the medals to prove I am not. There have

been various accusations. We have to have an informed debate, respect the

views of each other, there are no easy decisions in foreign policy,

there are hard choices. Respect each other and use the language

accordingly and if we can't do that, there is something sad, particularly

when we are accused of playing politics or personalities. I have

consistently opposed international intervention in Iraq and Helmand and

Libya and indeed two years ago so this is a matter for me of

conscience. And for you, Caroline Flint? Firstly I agree with

everything John has just said. For myself and others, this is really

difficult, the most serious decision you make is about putting our

service men and women into a combat situation whether from the air or

the ground. I have gone to several meetings since the statement last

week to find out more and I have come down in favour of supporting

the air strikes, the extension of our activity in Syria similar to

Iraq. That is against what the Labour

Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has said. Talking about respect, what has

happened to respecting each other's views in the Houses of Parliament.

Caroline Flint, have you come under pressure from some in your own party

that you would have blood on your hands if you vote in favour of the

Government's proposal? None of my party colleagues have said that to

me but like a number of my colleagues I have received via

social media and e-mails views that are against us supporting the Prime

Minister today expressed in language which I think is intolerant and

unhelpful. I know that other colleagues have received even

worse. It is really important that there is an understanding and

respect in this debate. Just to say about the Prime Minister, I think he

should apologise for what he is alleged to have said in this

meeting. It is completely unhelpful and I say that as someone who will

support the Government's motion. Do you think he should apologise, John

Baron? I've said my piece, I've made it clear that having served on the

streets of Northern Ireland you can vote for air strikes and not be a

terrorist sympathiser -- boat against air strikes. What about an

amendment in the debate? Can you tell us about that? It is saying

that the case for intervention, for war if you like, has not been made.

It is broad enough and short enough so that it welcomes anybody from all

sides of the house. And there are many of us who have deep concerns

about the line that the Government is taking. The central case is we do

not have an adamant, realistic long-term strategy, both military

and non-military, which includes an exit strategy. That absence featured

in our previous interventions in Iraq and in Helmand, in Libya, and

would have done two years ago when the Government was asked whether it

would side with the rebels. Without the long-term comprehensive strategy

and including the exit strategy we are deeply concerned about this,

particularly when you can't even identify the local ground forces

that will have to take the ground at the end of the day. Caroline, why

have you come to the conclusion that it will have a material impact on

Isis in Syria? Of course, I don't believe that by extending activity

to include air strikes that that is going to get rid of Isil in and of

itself, or for that matter solve the problem the Civil War in Syria. But

what I do believe is this: I voted 14 months ago to support air strikes

in Iraq to tackle the Isil forces there. In Syria we are already

supplying intelligence to allow others to pinpoint their air

strikes, refuelling and other logistical support as well. Given

that we know that Isil doesn't recognise any borders on this I feel

that the extension of our activity to support air strikes in the way we

have been doing in Iraq, I just think it doesn't make sense not to.

If you are against air strikes in Syria people should say they are

against what we are doing in Iraq as well. That is the truth of the

debate. Thank you for joining us. I will let you go into the chamber.

Thanks, Joe Cole. Malcolm Rifkind, other than the symbolic act of

showing solidarity with our allies, what is British bombing in Surrey

achieve? Specific military point that Britain has certain specific

munitions called Brimstone, which are impressive at pinpointing the

enemy and not having the same likelihood of creating collateral

damage and innocent people being killed. How many missiles do we have

of this type? I don't have the specific number. Maybe it does

because there are reports we don't have many. That is part of the wider

problem of the defence budget. That it is not a significant capability.

That is not what our allies believe. King Husein of Jordan this morning

wrote in the Daily Telegraph saying Britain is needed as part of the

international effort. He's bound to want that, they would all want that,

they want all the Allies they can get. It is also the case that the

typhoons we are deploying along with the tornadoes cannot carry the

Brimstone missile. That's as may be. You mentioned the Brimstone. I'm

putting the point that this is not the magical weapon the Government

has made it out to be. These are your words and not mine. The asked

me in the initial question was there any specific military benefit the

edited kingdom -- the United Kingdom can bring. They will bring these

missiles. We don't know how many. The Royal Air Force will know and

that is enough for me. You say it has a pinpoint capability but we now

know that the IS in Raqqa has now disbursed through the buildings.

They haven't got headquarters. They have dispersed themselves into the

population. The Brimstone missile is irrelevant in that situation. Your

conclusion does not match your initial statement. You are assuming

that the only bombing that will take place is in Raqqa, areas occupied by

civilians. Some of the prime time gets we will be going for, I assume,

and I'm sure I'm right, will for example be convoys carrying fuel,

convoys carrying munitions that have to go back and forward in northern

Iraq. The Americans are doing that already. They took out 180 of them,

why does it need the British? We are going to spend a ?100,000 Brimstone

missile to take out a fuel tanker? What we are saying is this is an

international effort. The United Kingdom does not franchise out the

defence of this country. If we see that Isis is a threat to the United

Kingdom and there is an international effort approved by the

United Nations supported by France, the United States, Russia and a

whole host of other countries the idea that the United Kingdom would

say let them do it on our behalf because they are making an effort

and save the money and do it for another purpose, you don't believe

that yourself and neither do most people. Isn't the stronger case that

the French have asked us to join them? Mr Hollande made a direct plea

to British Parliament, that Mr Obama in the United States would like us

to do the same, the King of Jordan has joined this morning, these are

our allies, and we would expect them to come to our aid when we needed. .

We have a duty to go to their aid when we have asked for it -- they

have asked for it? Solidarity is important but as has been said in

the debate so far we are doing a lot on the ground to supply whatever the

military there is doing, supplying humanitarian aid and we are doing a

lot already. It's important that when people look at the whole

strategy and situation and people have to be absolutely certain that

the political situation is there, the ground forces on the ground are

there and the missiles are in place and I don't think everything is in

place. Even the Germans, who have for obvious reasons been reluctant

to be involved in any military adventures overseas for 70 years are

sending the German navy to the eastern Mediterranean, sending 1500

troops and they have moved their reconnaissance and satellite

capabilities over the area Mr Hollande is asking. Indeed that they

are not making air strikes, that's the important distinction. In

response to the discussion you had with Malcolm Rifkind earlier, I

think I heard on the radio this morning that Isis is moving some of

its strategic headquarters to Libya, so what does that mean? Are we

supposed to... We have already bombed Libya! Are we supposed to

bomb it again? That was my point. It is unlikely we are going to move

focus to Libya. The core area of Isas has been northern Iraq and more

recently Syria. -- Isis. They have some operations in other countries

but that doesn't alter the fact that the so-called caliphate requires to

control large amounts of territory to give it credibility. It is only

by denying Isis in its heart mind, Syria and northern Iraq, that we

will remove the scourge from the problem we face. Is it not

inevitable, contrary to what the parliament was asked to vote two

years ago that we now have to make common cause with President Assad

and the Russians? With the Russians, yes, with Assad no. If the

Russians, partly as a result of having lost an aircraft because of

the Isis terrorist attack on it, if the Russians are prepared to

coordinate, as they say they are with France and presumably other

parts of the coalition against Isis, then yes, Russia is a sensible ally.

Two or three years ago the Russians helped to remove chemical weapons

from Syria and they did it in 24-hour is. Assad was told to go

operate with the Russians and he did. That shows the influence the

Russians have. Assad goes to the heart of the diplomatic

conversations that will have to take place regarding this Syrian Civil

War. How can you make common cause with the Russians and not Assad,

given he is only there because of the Russians? Assad is not actually

fighting Isis. The military conflict between Assad and the Syrian

opposition is in other parts of Syria. For his own reasons of

self-interest he's happy to leave Isis on touched. How can we be

onside with Russia and yet make Assad a deal-breaker, that's not

going to work? Assad is not a deal-breaker. You are confusing two

separate issues, they are obviously linked at some stage in this ghastly

process but they are essentially two issues. There is a question of how

to do with the Isis terrorist threat in northern Syria and the quite

separate issue, although inevitably it has links, of a political

solution, a diplomatic solution to the Syrians of war. Even if Isis

disappeared tomorrow the Civil War would continue until there are peace

negotiations. So we have a common cause with Russia to deal with the

Isis threat from the North. When it comes to the diplomatic solution for

the Syrians of a war, that is something which is grindingly slowly

making progress, but we have not yet got to the stage of a breakthrough.

The Labour leader put a lot of emphasis on the Vienna talks and

that there should be some kind of diplomatic negotiated way out of

this. With the best will in the world it is hard to see that

happening quickly, since it would involve the Assad regime, it would

involve the external parties including ourselves, and it would

involve all of these militia will stop the only people it wouldn't

involve is the Islamic State. At is absolutely right, it is a very slow

process and it has been given a timescale of 6-12 months to find a

resolution to the problem. It is a slow process and I understand why so

much store is put on the political process. We have to do other things

in the meantime, such as work with people on the ground. Personally, I

think we should be arming the Kurds, for example. I think the Kurds are

doing a magnificent job in both Iraq and Syria. But there we get into a

complex situation. Perhaps not the British, but the Germans have been

helping to arm the Kurds and others have been doing too. Their weapons

need to be modernised and so on. I come back to the point I made to

Malcolm Rifkind. Even if they were terribly well armed, they have a

geo- specific mission. They don't want to go further than the

territories around what they regard as Kurdistan. Yes, but I have been

talking to some Kurds of late, and I think they may be prepared to go a

little further. I think it is worth pursuing these issues. There is an

additional point as well, that best remains an area that Isis controls

between Raqqa and the Turkish border. The rest of it is controlled

by the Kurds. If that particular route could be blocked off, which it

ought to be able to without too much military problem, then that is a

serious blow to the ability of Isis to get recruits coming through the

porous Turkish border. If the Kurds were minded to do more but needed a

condition that they wanted a greater Kurdistan recognised that would just

create chaos in the region. They will not make that demand because

they know it is unrealistic at this moment in time. What they have

already achieved by historic standards is an incredible amount of

autonomy, both in the Kurdish region of Iraq and increasingly in northern

Syria. They will not be pushed out of that area. They know that this

will have to be step-by-step if they are going to realise their

aspirations. It would throw the cat among the pigeons if the Russians in

retaliation for what happened to their jet work to start backing a

Kurdistan. The Russians don't have a problem with the Kurds that the

Turks do. Exactly. There are lots of curious alliances but we must not

lose sight of the main target which is Islamic extremist terrorism which

controls a large part of Syria. That is what today is all about, that is

why the need for Britain to be part of this international community,

which the United Nations resolution gives full authority for, that is

something that gives a step forward. Laura Kuenssberg has been across

this story from the start. Prime Minister is probably heading for a

substantial victory. But it has been a rough 72, 36, 48 hours for him.

The terrorists remark at the committee last night, the 70,000

troops on the ground figure being widely disparaged. It has not been

great. If they held the vote at the end of last week they would

certainly have got their numbers at that point in the immediate

aftermath of David Cameron making that speech, widely acknowledged to

have been very effective and very statesman-like in the House of

Commons, particularly in the last 24 hours and overnight there has been a

sense of a real scramble, a very tense scramble. On both sides you

have had people trying to screw down their supporters. As you say there

is a 99.999% chance that the government will get what will feel

like a pretty hefty majority on this. But I think there is a sense

that as the vote has approached, scrutiny has become more intense,

MPs have been agonising over this and in every single political party,

we often give MPs a rough ride. In a week like this you see how seriously

they take these kinds of decisions. That the case has perhaps become a

little bit scratchy around the edges. There is no question about

that and as Sir Malcolm referenced, David Cameron will probably feel it

would have been better if he had not used the line at the 1922 last night

and it was inevitable it would come out. The idea you could say that

privately other room of Tory MPs. It is worth remembering, as we

discussed in his Conservative Party conference speech, used that line

but the campus was so different than pre-Paris and pre-this argument and

three being potentially 24 - 36 hours from British jets taking off

into the sky. -- canvas. More from the House of Commons now. Shadow

Edinburgh secretary is there. We are talking about the arguments that

have become much more angry, it feels and much more on the edges, if

you like -- energy Secretary. At least 50 or so Labour MPs will vote

with the government in favour of air strikes, disappointed by your

colleagues who would do that? Not at all. As Laura said, most of

us have wrestled hard with this decision. I listened to the Prime

Minister last week with an open mind about military action. I was looking

for reasons to support him in fact because I accept there is a strong

case for taking action in Syria in order to evade Isil and cut them off

in their headquarters. But like many of my colleagues, I have come to the

conclusion in the last few days that the Prime Minister is not able to

provide any kind of concrete strategy about what happens after

military air strikes and what happens on the ground. Unless he

said something very different in a few minutes time, I'm going to vote

against military action because I don't think it will help and

potentially, given the lack of clarity about ground troops, it

could make it worse. We have discussed the comments of David

Cameron last night but Jeremy Corbyn is said to have sparked accusations

that he is bullying his MPs by saying there would be no hiding

place for those siding with David Cameron. Caroline Flint

substantiated reports that she had been targeted on social media and by

e-mail by either those in the Parliamentary Labour Party or party

members like trying to pressurise MPs to knock back air strikes. What

do you say to them? It is right that the debate has become angry and

heated and it is a shame because this is not a Black and Whites

issue. There are consequences to both action and inaction and I think

the point Jeremy was making is that all MPs are to live with their own

consciences and go back to the constituencies and look their

constituents in the eye and answer them. I have not come under any

pressure from anyone about how I vote. He was right to give MPs a

free vote on this issue, I would prefer that all MPs had a free vote

on this so that Parliament could surface some of these difficult

arguments and reach a collective conclusion outside of party

politics. We will let you go into the debate because it is starting

shortly. It has been fractious, she has not been put under any pressure

because she agrees with Jeremy Corbyn. I think in some parts of the

Labour Party, fractious is an under estimate. It was a true talk talking

to some MPs last night, there is a sense that some of the bonds of

trust have been stretched -- it was brutal. It has become extremely

intense, stories of bullying. One pro strikes MP recounted an

extraordinary exchange with somebody they saw as being in the Corbyn camp

who basically said, you start it, we'll finish it. Jeremy Corbyn's

office denied this is going on in a deliberate way and that there is any

kind of bullying going on but there are many MPs who feel as if there

is. This is part of the wider picture of how Jeremy Corbyn wants

to involve the membership much more and reach outside Parliament because

that is where his power base is. For some MPs, and not all Blairites as

they are seen, this is difficult to come back from and this has changed

the Labour Party in the last few days, it has become very serious.

Let's dip into the House of Commons as it prepares for this debate. As

you can seek it is a house, no try ministers questions today. -- Prime

Minister's Questions. The benches are full, a big air of anticipation.

The Prime Minister will open for the government and give the case as he

sees it for extending the RAF bombing from Iraq into Syria and he

will be followed by the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, who

will give the case against doing so. We will bring you both speeches

live, full and uninterrupted. We understand that 157 members have put

their names down to the speaker requesting to speak in this debate.

As Laura was saying, it has been an issue about which MPs have thought

long and hard and they have come to their decisions, or perhaps some

will only after the debate. One almost unprecedented Parliamentary

procedure will take place which is that the Leader of the Opposition

will open for the opposition against the motion of the government but the

Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, will close for the opposition

and he will be speaking in favour of the motion. I can't remember that

happening in my life, even in the days when I was covering Gladstone

and Disraeli! It is a big occasion with a lot of MPs wanting to speak

on this issue. We understand the Prime Minister is going to speak for

quite some time, maybe at 240 minutes, and it could be longer --

up to 40 minutes. It could be longer because I imagine he would take a

large number of interruptions not just from the Labour side but those

on his own side he is yet to convince. And we will also hear from

the Scottish Nationalists who will follow. Angus Robertson will speak

on their behalf. After the Labour Party, by far the biggest opposition

what in Parliament so their voice matters as well. I can't help but

notice Hilary Benn sitting there and pondering what is an incredible

irony. He is in direct opposition to his leader who of course was one of

the strongest adherence of his father's politics. Something very

interesting about the two of them. And the brooding presence of Tom

Watson who has been such a keep figure in the last few days. -- key

figure. Even before a vote has cast, this has stitched the canvas,

with big invitations for labour and also for David Cameron. This is his

fifth big foreign-policy intervention since being Prime

Minister and he is now in a different place. When we discussed

the defence review, what ministers say is they believe there should be

a new assertiveness in the British attitude to intervening in the rest

of the world, that we live in a different place now where the terror

threat has modulated and evolved and we must therefore take a different

attitude. Although David Cameron wants to take this action and has

done for a long time, this is perhaps the start of a new attitude.

The beginning of his prime in as the ship was marked by a winding down of

operations in Afghanistan. But this will shape him and the Labour Party

and of course the SNP and what is going on in Scotland. Hardly a

single Scottish MPs will vote for this action. We can go back into the

chamber and see what is going on. The debate should have started. It

is ten minutes late because they are arguing about whether there should

be a two date the bait. The Scottish Nationalists have joined Mr Corbett

in asking for that -- eight to date debate -- a two-day debate.

There is another point of order taking place. The Scottish

Nationalists will be voting with Mr Corbyn on this but I understand the

Lib Dems and the DUP are going to side with the government. Indeed and

that is one of the reasons why a couple of Tory MPs believe they

might win without needing the support of Labour MPs. I think that

is optimistic from the government benches, it could be narrow in that

situation. But a real change for the Lib Dems. If you think back to the

last time there was an occasion like this in Parliament, it was very

different, but the Lib Dems build themselves into the mainstream

politics through their opposition to the Iraq war. They are now under Mr

Farren, who, rightly or wrongly, you would think would be less inclined

to support this. What happened? It took them a long time to get to this

position, they had hoped for a decision far earlier than when it

came at about 9pm last night. The Prime Minister is on his feet as we

begin this debate. The question before the house today

is how we keep the British people safe from the threat posed by Isil.

Let me be clear from the outset. This is not about whether we want to

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

governments of all political colours in this country have had to fight

terrorism and take the people with them as they do so. I respect people

who come to a different view from the government and the one I will

set out today and those who vote accordingly and I hope that provides

some reassurance to members right across the house. I am happy to give

way. I thank the Prime Minister for giving way and he is right in his

opening statement to say how important it is to respect opinion

on all sides of this house so will the apologise for the marks he made

in the meeting last night against Right honourable and honourable

friends on this side of the house? I be clearer in my remarks, I respect

people who disagree, I respect the fact that governments of all colours

have had to fight terrorism and I respect we are all discussing how to

fight terrorism, not whether to fight it. In moving this motion,...

Mr Speaker... The Prime Minister is clearly not at this stage giving

way. He has the floor. I will take dozens of interventions in the time

I have, I am conscious of not taking up too much time with similar people

wanting to speak I will give way a lot in my speech. Let me make some

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'm not overstating the contribution that our incredible

servicemen and women can make and neither am I ignoring the risks of

military action. Nor am I pretending that it is any more than one part of

the answer. I am absolutely clear that we must pursue a comprehensive

strategy that also includes political, diplomatic and

humanitarian action. I know that the long-term solution in Syria, as in

Iraq, must ultimately be a government that represents all 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 security, Isil have brutally murdered British

hostages, inspired the worst terrorist attack against British

people since 7-7 on the beaches of Tunisia and plotted atrocity after

atrocity on the street here at home. Since November last year our

security is that is have foiled no fewer than seven different plots

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

Do we work with our allies to degrade and destroy this threat and

go after these terrorists in with their heartlands from where they

plot to kill British people or do we sit back and wait for them to attack

us? Thank you for giving way to it would be helpful if he could retract

his inappropriate comments from last night but will he be reassured that

no one on this side of the house will make a decision based on any

such remarks, nor will we be threatened from doing what we

believe is the right thing, whether those threats come from online

activists or indeed from our own dispatch box? I completely agree

with the honourable gentleman, everyone in this house should make

up their mind on the arguments in this house and there is honour in

voting for and honour in voting against. That is the way this house

should operate and that is why I wanted to be absolutely clear at the

start of my sentence, this is about how we fight terrorism, not whether

we do. I will make some progress and then give way. In answering this

question, we should remember that 15 months ago, facing the threat from

Isil in Iraq, this house voted 524 to 43 to authorise as drugs in Iraq.

Since then our brilliant RAF pilots have helped local forces halt the

advance of Isil and recovered 30% of the territory they had captured. On

Monday spoke to the president of Iraq in Paris and he expects his

better Jude for the vital work our forces are doing and yet when plays

reach the border with Syria, a border that Isil themselves do not

recognised we can no longer act to defend either his country or hours.

Even when we know that their headquarters are in Syria and it is

from here that many of the plot against our country are formed.

The Prime Minister is facing an amendment signed by 110 members of

this house from six different political parties. I've examined

that list very carefully and I cannot identify a single terrorist

sympathiser on that list. Will he now apologise for his deeply

insulting remarks? PRIME MINISTER: I've made clear this is about how we

fight terrorism and there is honour in any vote that honourable member

is make. We possess the capabilities to reduce this threat to our

capability. My argument today is we should not wait any longer before

doing so. We should answer 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 safe. My strong view is that this house should make

clear that we will take up our responsibilities, rather than pass

them off and put our own national security in the hands of others. I

give way to the member for Stratford-upon-Avon. I've just

returned from Baghdad and Irbil, where Isil is on the back foot,

Ramadi is surrounded, Sinjar has been liberated. The route between

Mosul and Raqqa has been cut off but everyone on the ground tells me that

unless we attack Isil in Syria there is no point in liberating Mosul or

the rest of Iraq because all they will do with is regrouping Syria and

come back and attack that country and our country. PRIME MINISTER: My

honourable honourable friend makes an important point and it is set out

clearly in the UN Security Council that the fact this so-called

caliphate exists in Syria and also Iraq is a direct threat to Iraq and

the government of Iraq. He talks about some of the better news there

has been from Iraq, I would add to that what has happened in Tikrit

since that has been taken from Isil. We have seen 70% of the population

returning to that city. Later in the debate I'm sure we will talk about

the importance of humanitarian aid and reconstruction. That can only

work if you have good government in those towns and the absence of Isil

or Daesh in those towns. Let's mix in progress and I will take more

interventions, including from the different political parties in this

house. Mr Speaker, since my statement last week the House had an

opportunity to ask questions of our security experts. I rinsed a

briefing for all members as well as more detailed briefings for Privy

Council members. I spoke to our allies including President Obama,

Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and beat King of Jordan.

The king of Jordan Rhodes in the Telegraph today ex-president his

wish for Britain to stand with the Allies in dealing with this threat.

The King of Jordan. The stress on post-conflict stabilisation and

reconstruction. The importance of standing by our allies. The

importance of only targeting Isil. Not deploying ground troops in, it

operations. The need to avoid civilian casualties. The importance

of ceasefires and a political settlement and a commitment to

regular updates to this house. I've drawn these points from across the

House and put them in the motion, because I want as many as people as

possible to feel able to support this action. I give way to the

honourable member for Carshalton. I will be supporting him today. But I

do think, however, that he needs to apologise for the comments he made

in relation to the Labour Party. Could I ask him very specifically in

relation to civilian casualties were UK Government is going to do to

minimise those? The honourable gentleman raises an important

point. In Iraq for a year and three months there have been no reports of

civilian casualties related to the strikes that Britain has taken. Our

starting point is to avoid civilian casualties altogether. I have

argued, and indeed I will argue again today, that our position

weapons and the skill of our pilots makes civilian casualties less

likely, so Britain being involved in the strikes in Iraq can both be

effective in prosecuting the campaign against Isil, but also can

help us to avoid civilian casualties as well. Let me give way to the

honourable member for Birkenhead. I'm grateful to the Prime Minister.

Is he aware that we have press reports that over the recent past

60,000 Syrian troops have been murdered by Isil, and our allies

have actually waited to attack until after those murderous acts have

taken place. And therefore there is a key part in the motion for many of

us, which talks about our action will be exclusively against Isil. If

Isil are involved in attacking Syrian government troops, will we be

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

our allies have done until now, wait for Isil to kill those troops and

then for us to bomb. What I would say to the right honourable

gentleman, who I have great respect for, the motion says exclusively

Isil because that was a promise I made in this house in response to

the points made from both sides of the House. And as far as I'm

concerned, were ever Isil are, wherever they can be properly

targeted that is what we were should do. -- that is what we should do. It

is important will make onto the argument about ground troops, in my

discussions with the King of Jordan, he made the point that in

the south of Syria there is already cooperation between Jordanian

government and the French and Americans and Free Syrian Army, but

also there is a growing ceasefire between the regime troops and the

Free Syrian Army, so they can turn their guns on Isil. That is what

I've said, this is an Isil first strategy. They are the threat, they

are the ones we should be targeting and this is about our national

security. Let me make some progress and then I will take more

interventions. I want to address in my remarks the most important points

raised and I will take as many interventions as I can. I believe

the key questions raised are these: first, good acting in this way

increase the risk to our security by making an attack on Britain more

likely? Second, does Britain have the capability to make a significant

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

including the honourable member for Gordon, is why don't we increased

the level of our air strikes in Iraq to free up capacity amongst other

members of the coalition so they can carry out more air strikes in

Syria? Fourth, will they really needed to make this operation a

success? Fifth, what is the strategy for defeating Isil and securing a

lasting political settlement in Syria? And, six, is there a proper

reconstruction host conflict stabilisation plan for Syria? In the

time I have available I want to try and answer one of these. Let me give

way to the honourable member. I thank the Prime Minister for giving

away. He will know how members of the party feel when it comes to

fighting and dealing with terrorism. And for that there will always be

supporting the matter where terrorism raises its head. Turning

to the motion, can 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 the House to seek approval for

that? It is not only something I don't want to do, it is something

that I think if we did 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-productive and that is our view. That I would say to him and to

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

that this means that our strategy takes longer to be successful

because we rely on Iraqi ground troops in Iraq, we rely on the

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

for Syrian ground troops from a transitional regime but that takes

longer. One of the killer messages that has to come across today is a

yes we have a strategy, it's a convex picture and will take time

but we are acting in the right way. Let me make one more point before

taking more interventions. Before we get onto these things, Mr Speaker, I

want to say a word about the terminology we used to describe this

evil death cult. Having considered the representations made to me by

the honourable member for chilling and listen to many numbers across

the House it's time to join our key I France, the Arab league and other

members of the international community in using as frequently as

possible the terminology Daesh rather than Isil. This evil death

cult is neither a true representative of is that nor is it

a state. I'm interested to hear what the honourable gentleman says we

should use to talk about Daesh but talking about terminology, should

heed not take this opportunity withdraw the remarks that he is

calling those not voting with him to note a bunch of terrorist

sympathisers? Not only is that offensive, it is dangerous and

untrue. I've made my views clear about the importance of all of us

fighting terrorism and its time to move on. Let me turn to the

important questions, and I will take interventions as I go through these

questions. First, could acting increased the risk to our security?

This is one of the most important questions we have to answer. Privy

councils across the House have had a briefing from the chair of

independent joint intelligence committee. Obviously I cannot share

all of the classified material that I can say this, Paris wasn't just

different because it was so close to us, or because it was so horrific in

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

planning from Daesh in Syria and the approach of sending people back from

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

in action. It is not surprising in my view that the judgment of the

chair of the joint intelligence committee and the judgment of the

director-general of the security service, is that the risk of a

similar attack in the UK is real. And that the UK is already in the

top tier of countries on Isil's target list. Let me be frank, Mr

Speaker. I want make this point and then I will take more interventions.

If there is an attack on the UK in the coming weeks or months there

will be those who try and save it has happened because of our trikes.

I do not believe that would be the case. Daesh have been trying to

attack us for the last year as we know from the seven different plots

our security services have foiled -- because of our tax. The terrorist

level to the UK was raised to severe last August meaning an attack is

highly likely from the threat of Daesh. 800 people, including

families and children have been radicalised to such an extent they

have travelled to this caliphate. The House should be under no

illusion, these terrorists plot to kill us and radicalise our children

now. They attack us because of who we are not because of what we do.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On these benches we all share the Prime

Minister has Mac horror for Daesh and its death cult, and we abhor

terrorism. Will he take the opportunity to identify which

members of these benches he regards as terrorist sympathisers? Everyone

in this house can speak for themselves. When it comes to the

risks of military action, the risks of inaction are far greater than the

risks of what I propose. Next, there are those who ask whether Britain

conducting strikes in Syria will really make a difference. This is a

question that came up. Let me make my argument and then I will take his

question. This point has been raised in briefing after briefing. I

believe we can make a real difference. I told the House last

week about our dynamic targeting, about our Brimstone missile is, the

raptor pod on our tornadoes and the intelligence gathering work of our

Reaper drones. I will not repeat that today but there is another way

to put this which I think is equally powerful. In the coalition there is

a lot of strike capacity but when it comes to precision strike

capability, whether covering Iraq or Syria, last week the whole

international coalition had some 26 aircraft available. Eight of those

were British tornadoes, so typically the UK actually represents between 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 significant

proportion of high precision strike capability. That's why this decision

is so important. He's been very persistent and I will give way to

the honourable gentleman. He's right to sing the praises of the RAF

pilots, and my constituent Mike Poole was tragically killed training

for the RAF in a tornado in 2012. He has asked specifically this

question. Will be a force in northern Iraq, or is the air force

in northern Iraq, and if you go into Syria, does it have coalition

warning systems in this crowded airspace? Absolutely essential for

the safety of our pilots. The honourable gentleman is right to pay

this to -- bring up this issue. In terms of our own aeroplanes they

have the most advanced systems to make sure they are kept safe. The

argument I was making is one reason why members of the international

coalition, including Mr Obama and President Hollande who made these

points to me personally, they believe British planes would make a

real difference in Syria, just as they are already doing in Iraq. I'm

grateful for the Prime Minister giving way. It's important in this

debate that there is respect across the House. In the spirit of respect,

will the Prime Minister who has been asked before apologise. For the slur

put on every member of the opposition last night.

Either vote is an honourable 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 coalition 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. -- Daesh 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 scrambled.

That sort of De Laet endangers 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. Can 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-military

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. 70,000

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

Libya. What is his reaction to the decision of the Foreign Affairs

Committee yesterday that actually the Prime Minister had not

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

second question is perhaps answered by something I am sure the whole

house want to join me in which is wishing the honourable member 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 action is only one part. The key answered his

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

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

so-called caliphate altogether. My disagreement with my honourable

friend is that I believe we cannot wait for that to happen, the 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 security

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

that change into another cheap and all members of Parliament because

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 impartiality rules. We are at war with

terrorism, we have to be united, 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, Islamic

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 language. Let me make some progress and I will give

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

should carry out as drugs in Syria ourselves will stop it is Rakip in

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

said, it is in Syria were many 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 but 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 hub is,

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

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

and that is an important point -- 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 casualties.

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 difficult 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 this so-called caliphate which is

radicalising Muslims, turning people against us and plotting atrocities

on the streets of Britain? I'm grateful to my right honourable

friend for giving way. Would he agree with me that there are 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 ill doings. -- throne of the holdings.

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

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

this operation a success are 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 achieve. We don't need ground troops to

target the supply of oil which 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 forces, the

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

our streets and we should give them that support

our streets and we should give them capability. How would he was born to

the point that since the offensive on Baghdad was blunted by air power,

it has changed its tactics and 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 having a longer term strategy to deliver the

ground troops through the transition you need. The argument is simple, 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 the question of ground forces cannot 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 explanation, we believe there are around 70,000

Syrian opposition fighters who do not belong to extremist groups and

with whom we can coordinate attacks on Daesh. The house will appreciate

there are some limits on what 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 detailed

analysis updated daily and drawing on a wide range of open source and

intelligence. Of these, the majority are from the free Syrian army.

Alongside the 70,000 there are some 20,000 Kurdish fighters with whom we

can also work. I am not arguing, this is crucial, that all of these

70,000 art somehow ideal partners. Some left the Syrian army because 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 across the house he spoke about a long-term

strategy and a new government in Syria and there is wide agreement 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 President 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 between

written, America and Saudi Arabia 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 vital talks

in Vienna get underway. And a point about these talks are some people

worry it is a process without an end but the clear ambition of the talks

is for a transitional government within six months and a new

constitution and fresh sections 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 authorised to night he remains completely

committed to the huge F at which has kept so many people alive by this

government in that region? -- the huge humanitarian effort.

We will be keeping that other not least with the vital conference 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 Isil's external planning capability and

think it would have commanded 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 difficulty of

this case. I don't think you can separate taking out the command and

control of Isil's operations against the UK or France or elsewhere from

the task of degrading and destroying the Daesh caliphate they have

created. They are intricately linked and as I argued last week, as long

as this so-called caliphate exists, it is a threat to us, not least

because it is radicalising Muslims from across the world who are going

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 things we can do without ground troops, don't

underestimate them. The ground could that are there, not ideal, not as

men it is radicalising Muslims from across the world who are going 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 things we can do without ground troops, don't

underestimate them. The ground 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 caliphate which will keep our country safe. I know

that takes a long time and it is complex but that is the strategy

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 the 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 motherly advice?

If he just got up and said, whoever does not walk with me through the

division lobbies is not a terrorist sympathiser, he would improve his

standing in this house enormously. I'm very happy to repeat what she

said. People who vote in either division lobby do so with honour, I

couldn't have been more clear about that. What I would say to her, is if

she is saying there are not enough ground troops she's right, if she is

saying they are not always in the right places she's right. But the

question is, should we act now in order to try and start to turn 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 25,000 extremist fighters in groups which

reject political participation 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 my view

we simply cannot afford to wait, we have to act now. I give way to the

leader of the SNP. I'm grateful 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 in race into the forces of 70,000? How many

are classified as moderate and 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 up of Free Syrian Army. But of course the

Free Syrian Army has different leadership in different parts of the

country. 70,000 excludes those extremist groups like al-Nusra that

we will not work with. But as 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 definition 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 against

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 friend. I know from my time in government

how long, hard and I just be the Prime Minister thinks about these

questions. But, will he ensure 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 questions 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 the 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 a comprehensive review to root out any

remaining funding of extremism within the UK. This will examine

specifically the nature, scale and origin of the funding of Islamist

extremism activity in the UK, including any overseas sources. It

will report to myself and Right Honourable honourable friend the

Home Secretary next spring. I want to make this point before giving

way. There are some who express military action is in some way

capable of undermining our counter extremism strategy by radicalising

British Muslims. Let me tackle this head on, British Muslims are

appalled by Daesh. These women rake raping, murderous monsters are

hijacking the peaceful religion of Islam for their ends. As the 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 engaged 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 its very

hour of need. The Prime Minister said that they would fight all the

time in this country. Why don't the Iranians, the Saudis, the Turks, 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 taken part in this action and urge us to do the

same. I have here quote after quote from leader after leader in the Gulf

world making and pleading with Britain to take part to take the

fight to this death cult that threatens us all so much. The second

part of the strategy is support for the diplomatic and political

process. Let me say a word about how this process can lead to ceasefires

between the regime and opposition so essential for the next stages of

this political transition. It begins with identifying the right people to

put around the table. We expect a Syrian Bell a team of people to

negotiate under the auspices of the United Nations. Over the last 18

months political and armed opposition have confirmed Eddie

Macken the -- have converged and we will arrange a meeting for

opposition representatives in 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 elections

within 18 months, so I would argue that the key elements of a deal are

emerging. Ceasefires, opposition groups coming together, the regime

looking at negotiation, the key players, America, Russia, Saudi

Arabia and Iran and Chiriches no players -- key regional players like

Turkey. Negotiation helps this process which is the eventual goal.

Does the Prime Minister agree 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 that 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 us 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 call? And

if we ignore the call, think what that says about Britain as an ally.

Inc what it says to the countries in the region who ask themselves if

Britain won't come to the aid of France, it's neighbour in these

circumstances, just how reliable neighbour, honourable friend and

ally this country is. Let me 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 phase. 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 an

organisation that enslaves Yazidis, throws gay people off buildings,

behead aid workers and forces children to marry before they are

even ten years old. We cannot separate the humanitarian work and

the reconstruction work from dealing with Daesh itself. I'm grateful for

the Prime Minister for giving way and welcome any comments that

distance British Muslims and Muslims in Scotland from Daesh and I welcome

the use of that terminology. I ask the question as a new Member of the

House, looking to seasoned Parliamentary members who have been

in the House for some time as 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 and that

is what we should be focusing on. Let me turn to the plan for

post-conflict reconstruction to support a new Syrian government when

it emerges. I've said we would be prepared to commit ?1 billion to

Syria's reconstruction. The initial priorities would be protection,

security, stabilisation and confidence building measures,

including meeting basic humanitarian needs such as education, health and

shelter and helping refugees to return. Over time the focus would

shift, the longer term rebuilding of Syria's shattered infrastructure,

harnessing the expertise of the international financial institutions

and the private sector. As I said last week, we're not in the business

of trying to dismantle the Syrian state or its institutions. We would

aim to allocate reconstruction funds against a plan agreed between 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 Minister,

what matters to my constituents is whether they will be safer after

this process has taken place. He's making a strong case that we 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 is 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 the 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 Europe? I

would say we have played a huge part in Europe as the biggest bilateral

donor. No other European country has given as much as Britain has and we

will take 20,000 refugees with 1000 arriving by Christmas. I'm happy to

look once again at the issue of orphans. I think it is better to

take orphans from the region rather than those who come over with

sometimes extended family. I'm very happy to look at that again, both in

Europe and out of Europe, to see if Britain can do more to fulfil our

moral responsibilities. Mr Speaker, let me conclude, this is not 2003.

We must not use past mistakes as an excuse for indifference or in

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 threat and

we have listened to our allies. We have taken legal advice. We have a

unanimous United Nations resolution and discussed action extensively at

meetings of the Security Council and cabinet and I've responded

personally to the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and

we have a proper motion before the House and we have a ten hour debate

today. I look forward to the 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 action

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 number two, I call the leader of the opposition,

Mr Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Shouldn't brought before the house today by the government faces us

with exacting that decision. It is one with potentially far-reaching

consequences for us all, Hitler in written as well as the people of

civic -- here in Britain as well as the people of Syria. Taking a

decision that would put British servicemen and women in harm 's way

and would almost inevitably lead to the death of innocents is a heavy

responsibility and it must be treated with the utmost seriousness

and respect given to those who make a different judgment about the right

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

brand those who planned to vote against the government as terrorist

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

undermines the seriousness of the deliberations we are having. If he

now wants to apologise for those remarks, I would be happy to give

way to him to do so. Since the Prime Minister is unmoved,

we will have to move on with the debate and I hope... He will be

stronger later to recognise that, yes, he did make an unfortunate

remark last night and apologising for it would be very helpful to

improve the atmosphere of this debate. I thank my honourable friend

for giving way. As he is appropriately pointing out that the

Prime Minister is not showing leadership by not withdrawing his

slur on me and others, would he also agreed there is no place whatsoever

in the Labour Party for anybody who has been abusing those members of

the parties who choose to vote with the government on this resolution?

-- of the party. Abuse has no part in responsible, Democratic political

dialogue, I believe very strongly in that and that is the way I wish to

conduct myself and I wish others to conduct themselves. I'm very

grateful to my right honourable friend for giving way. Would he

agreed that if the Prime Minister came to the dispatch box and made a

clear apology, he would clear the air immediately and we could move on

in this debate with a simple, I'm sorry? 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, that's fine, if

he doesn't, the whole world can note he is not apologising. Since the

Prime Minister first made his case for extending British bombing to

Syria last week, the doubts and unanswered questions then expressed

on both sides of the house have only grown and multiplied. That is why it

is a matter of such concern that the government has decided to push this

vote through Parliament today. It would have been far better to allow

a full two day debate that would have given all members the chance to

a proper contribution and you yourself, Mr Speaker, informed us

that 157 have applied to speak in this debate. I'm grateful to him for

giving way. We have worked together on the Kurdish issue, he knows how

tough the Kurds are finding it fighting Isil in Iraq and Syria. His

Shadow Foreign Secretary believes the four conditions debated at the

Labour Party conference for taking action in Syria have been met, why

does he disagree? He may have to wait a few moments to hear that but

it will be in my speech, I can promise him Ulster I'm pleased he'd

made the intervention in respect of the Kurdish people because at some

point, over the whole of the Middle East and this is that the mud, that

has to be a recognition of the rights of Kurdish people, in

whichever country they live. I thank him for giving way. I'm glad

he has mentioned the Kurds. Could he be clear that he or anyone on this

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

on with an overwhelming majority in the house 14 months ago? I thank him

for the intervention, it is not part of the motion today so we move on

with this debate. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the

Prime Minister understands that public opinion is moving

increasingly against what I believe to be an ill thought out rush to

walk. He wants to hold this vote before opinion grows further against

him -- rush to war. Whether it is a lack of strategy, the absence of

credible ground troops, the missing the Mitic plan for a Syrian

settlement, the failure to address the impact of the terrorist threat

or the refugee crisis and civilian casualties, it is becoming clear

that the Prime Minister's proposal for military action simply do not

stack up. And grateful to him for giving way and I agree that the case

has not been put for this. Under these circumstances, and the slur

that has been put on the opposition benches, whether or not he will

reconsider that it is important that the Labour Party in its entirety

joins with these ventures on opposing the government to make sure

this government is defeated on this motion? Every MP as to make a

decision today, every MP has a vote today, every MP has a constituency

and they should be aware of what constituents and public opinion is

and they will make up their own mind. Obviously I am proposing we do

not support the motion of the government and I would encourage all

colleagues on all sides to join me in the opposition lobby tonight.

Last week the Prime Minister focused his case for bombing in Syria on the

critical tests set by the very respected cross-party foreign

affairs select committee. Given the holes in their case to it is

scarcely surprising that last night the committee reported the Prime

Minister had not, "adequately addressed their concerns." In other

words, the committee judged that the Prime Minister's case for bombing

has failed its tests. I'm grateful to the right and noble gentleman.

That the committee resolved 4-3 that the prime Minster has not adequately

addressed concerned in the second report with the absence of his

honourable friends for a dinner in Valley and Ilford South, who would

have resisted that motion, but it is on a narrow point where logically it

is all most impossible for the Prime Minister to adequately meet those

concerned given the fact he is not in a position to produce sufficient

detail to set aside some of my colleagues. It is a very weak point

for him to rely on. I thank him for his intervention and we have often

had amicable discussions on many of these issues and I am sure we will

again. The fact is that at a meeting of the foreign affairs select

committee, there was a verdict and that the Prime Minister had not

adequately addressed the concerns. Obviously I understand there are

differences of opinion, there are plenty all around this house. Your

benches and these. I ask the chair of the select committee to recognise

that a decision has been made by his committee. After the despicable and

horrific attacks in Paris last month, the question of whether the

government's proposals for military action in Syria strengthens or

undermines our own national security must be at the centre of our

deliberations. There is no doubt that the so-called Islamic State

group, I had given way quite a lot already, there are 157 members who

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

speed it up slightly which appears to meet with your approval. There is

no doubt that the so-called Islamic State has imposed a reign of

sectarian and inhumane terror in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and that it

also poses a threat to our own people. The issue now is whether it

is whether it's ending British bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely

to reduce or increase that threat to Britain and whether it will counter

or spread the terror campaign Isil is waging across the Middle East.

The answers don't make the case for the government motion. On the

contrary, they are warning to step back. A vote against yet another

ill-fated twist in this never-ending war on terror Ulster that start with

the military dimension. The prime Minster has been unable to explain

why extending extract to Syria will make a significant literary impact

on the existing campaign. Isil is already being bombed by Syria, the

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

from this campaign and no longer takes part in it. During more than a

year bombing, Isil has expanded and lost territory, they gained include

it Ramadi and the Syrian city of polymer. The claim that superior

British missiles would make a difference is hard to credit when

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

struggling to find suitable targets. In other words, extending British

bombing is unlikely to make a huge difference. Secondly, the Prime

Minister has failed to convince almost anyone that even if British

participation 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, it is quite clear there are no such forces. Last week the Prime

Minister suggested that a combination of Kurdish militias, the

free Syrian army, able to fill the gap. He even claimed a 70,000 strong

force of moderate FS a fighters were ready to coordinate action against

Isil with the Western air campaign. That claim has not remotely stood up

to scrutiny. Kurdish forces are a distance away in areas where Isil

controls. The FSA include a wide range of groups and 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 successful

anti-Isil air campaign are stronger jihadist groups close to the Isil

controlled areas. I think these are serious issues that we need to think

through carefully all stop I believe that is what the Prime Minister's

bombing campaign could lead to. This is why the logic... I will give

weight later on in my contribution but I think I should be enabled to

make an important part of this -- give weight. This is why the logic

of an extended air campaign is in fact mission creep and western boots

on the ground, whatever he may say now about keeping British combat

troops out of the way, 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 Paris atrocities and cited in today's motion does not

give clear and unambiguous authorisation for UK bombing in

Syria. To do so it would have had to be passed under chapter seven of the

United Nations Charter to which the Security Council could not agree.

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

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

wonder how many side there are of that happening. I thank him for

giving way. We don't agree on much but on the necessity to cut off the

oil supplies I do agree with him but I am at a loss to understand why he

would oppose a strike which are such a crucial part in targeting oil

supplies which are providing funding for Isil Daesh. The problem is, the

oil supplies that are being sold are going into other countries come into

Turkey and other places and I think we need to know exactly who is

buying that oil, who is funding it, what 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. That is despite the clear

risk of a potentially disastrous incidents, the shooting down of

eight Russian military aircraft by Turkish forces is a sign of the

danger of a serious escalation of this whole issue.

I'm grateful to him for giving way. The number of the grand troops is

unknown and the composition also but we note by definition they are

opposition fighters, anti-Assad. Does he agree the Prime Minister

still has a question to answer about how we can work with them to take

round from Daesh without getting drawn into a wider conflict with

Russia, given they are on the other side? I think the member for

Brighton makes an important point. She has been very active in trying

to promote peace and humanitarian resolutions to the many conflicts

that exist around the world. Fourthly, Mr Speaker, the Prime

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

has surely been given. The likely impact of UK air strikes on the

threat of terrorist attacks in the UK. That's something everyone who

backs the Government's motion should think about very carefully before we

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

critically important, Mr Speaker, that we as a House are honest with

the British people about the potential consequences of the action

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

those with military experience, including members on the benches