17/11/2015 House of Commons

that and compare themselves to a Dale, which put themselves at the

centre of the work they do to help patients. Myself and my colleagues

support his comments about the atrocities in France at the weekend.

I would like to ask him of the assistant he has made of how

problems are contributing toward the problem with recruiting nursing

staff in London in the NHS? It is a serious problem and people find it

hard to live nearby to the hospital where they work on the particular

where housing is very expensive and this is an issue we are looking at

closely. Could the Secretary of State assure me that the NHS funding

review, which is currently under way, will deliver a fair formula for

my constituents that many other across York and North Yorkshire by

putting age and morality, some of the biggest drivers, at the heart of

this review? The clinical commission formula, I can assure him that

morbidity is taken into account. It is or is a matter for local decision

and discretion. Can the Health Secretary explain how cutting ?200

million from pub health Budget is consistent with the emphasis on

prevention as put forward in the five-year public review? I have

already explained, but I would ask the Labour Party held they committed

?5.5 billion less? Some of our GPs surgeries are finding it hard to

attract new GPs. What plan does the Government have to train new GPs in

areas where it difficult to recruit? We are very colleges of the

pressures on general practice and on the pressures of ensuring there are

enough GPs available. The Government's plans are for 5000 more

GPs to be working by 2020. It is supported by efforts to make sure

medical schools are doing anything they can to make sure general

practice is more attractive. According to Public Health England,

in the most deprived areas in Bradford, life expectancy is 9.6

years lower for men at eight years lower for women. It demonstrates

that there are clear health inequalities in urban areas in

Bradford. The governor's attack on the poor make this issue worse. Can

the Minister tell me what the Government is doing to tackle these

inequalities to give people a Bradford the quality of life they

deserve? The honourable gentleman will be aware of the answer I gave

earlier to other questions. There is a wide range of aspects of the

public health work that the governed is taking forward that attacks that

very issue. The inequality that falls on some community is. I gave

examples, the family nurse partnership, more widely, for

example, the universal health visitor programme which has moved

into commissioning by local government. It has significant

elements within it to support families in disadvantaged amenities.

For the avoidance of doubt, please with the Secretary of State repeat

again that he will enter into completely open-minded, negotiations

with the BMA, because the public needs to see this. We'll be doing

everything we can to avoid a damaging dispute for patients. We do

reserve the right to increment our manifesto commitment to seven-day

reforms if we failed to make progress in those negotiations.

Right now, in the interest of patients, the right thing to do is

to sit around the table and talk rather than to refuse to negotiate

and go ahead with the strikes. Rochdale infirmary has dementia help

which helps the local people. Will he meet me there to see how it can

be shared more widely? I am happy to do that and we have made progress in

tackling dementia. There are great examples across the country but we

can still do a lot better and we need to concentrate not just on

dementia diagnosis but on the quality of care we give people when

they have a diagnosis. Could the Health Secretary outline will be

available to patients over the winter. Norfolk hospital has

declared an alert last week. We are preparing for this winter with

unprecedented scales. We are learning from the experiences of

last some power -- Samantha would be support provided through the winter

to ensure we deal with the additional challenges that are being

thrown in the way of hospitals across the country by the junior

doctors in their industrial action they are taking. Is the Secretary of

State doing everything he can to ensure we secure extra dedicated

investment in mental health at the Spending Review? To introduce the

same access rights as everyone else, it requires hard cash and I am

sure he will agree that we have to end this outrageous discrimination

against those who suffer from mental ill-health. I congratulate him on

his time given who is sitting on the bench right now. We will put extra

resources into the NHS and will make sure we increase the proportion of

those resources are going to mental health and I would like to

congratulate him on his award last week on mental health, which was

extremely well deserved. Statement, the Prime Minister. With permission,

I would like to make a statement on the terrorist attack in Paris and

the G20 in Turkey this weekend. On Paris, the Home Secretary gave the

House the chilling statistics yesterday and now we know among the

victims was a 36-year-old Briton, Nick Alexander, was killed at the

Bataclan. I know the thoughts and prayers of the whole house will be

with the families and the friends of all those affected. On Saturday, I

spoke to President Hollande to express condolences of the British

people and our commitments to help in whatever way we can. After our

horror and anger most, our resolve and determination to rid our world

of this evil. Let me set out the steps we are taking to deal with

this terrorist threat. The more we learn about what happened in Paris,

the more it justifies the full spectrum approach that we have

discussed before this house. When you are dealing with radicalised

European Muslims, links to isolate and Syria and inspired by poisonous

narrative and extremism, you need an approach that covers the full range.

-- Isil. Military power, counter-terrorism expertise and the

narrative that is the root cause of this evil. First we should be clear

that this murderous violence requires a strong security response.

That means continuing our efforts to degrade and destroy Isil in Syria

and Iraq and where necessary it means working with our allies to

strike against those who pose a direct threat to the safety of

British people around the world. Together, coalition forces have

damaged over 30,500 targets. We have helped local forces to regain 30% of

Isil territory in Iraq. We have taken areas and pushed them back and

Kurdish forces retook the region. The UK is playing his part training

local forces, striking targets in Iraq and providing vital intelligent

sports -- intelligence support. The US carried out a strike targeting

the Isil executioner known as Jihadi John. This was after painstaking

work in which America and Britain worked to stop this vicious

murderer. It is important that the whole house understands the reality

of the situation we are in. There is no Government in Syria we can work

with, particularly in that that part of Syria. There are no police

investigations or independent courts upholding justice in one area. We

have no military on the ground to stop the fraught sick -- the threats

against our people. We cannot support the British people by

wishing things were different. We have to act to keep our people safer

matters what our Government will always do. Counter-terrorism here in

the UK, over the past year alone, our outstanding police and security

services have already foiled seven terrorist plots here in Britain. The

people in our security services work hard and all credit to our nation

and we pay tribute to them again in our house today. Now we must do more

to help them. In the defence and Security review, we will make an

additional investment in our world-class in the agencies. This

will include 1900 additional staff and more money to increase our

network of counterterrorism experts in the Middle East, North Africa,

South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. At the G20 summit in Turkey this

weekend, we agreed additional steps to better protect ourselves from the

threat of foreign fighters by sharing intelligence and stopping

them from travelling. We agreed that the first time to work together to

strengthen global aviation security. We need a robust and consistent

standards of aviation security in every airport of the world and the

UK will double its spending in this area. To defeat the terrorist threat

in the long run, we must understand and address its root causes. That

means confronting the poisonous ideology of its domestic extremism

is self. That means going after both violent and non-violent extremists.

Those that so the poison itself but stop short of promoting violence,

they are part of the problem. We will improve integration, not least

by inspecting and shutting down any educational experience --

institutions and encourage reform and Muslim voices to speak up and

challenge the extremists are so many do. It cannot be said enough that

the extremist ideology is not true Islam in stock but it doesn't work

to deny any connection between the religion of Islam and the

extremists, not least because the extremists themselves self identify

as Muslims. There is no point denying that. What we need to do is

to take a part of their arguments and demonstrate how wrong they are.

We need the continued help of Muslim communities and Muslim scholars.

They are playing a powerful role and I commend them for that absolutely

essential work. We cannot stand neutral in this battle of ideas. We

have to back those who share our values with practical help, funding,

campaigns, protection and political representation. This is a

fundamental part of how we can defeat this terrorism both at home

and abroad. Turning to the G20 summit, there were discussions on

Syria and on dealing with other long-term flats to security such as

climate change. -- threats. On Syria, we discussed how we do more

to help those in desperate humanitarian need and how to find a

political solution to the conflict. Britain has already provided ?1.1

billion in vital life-saving assistance. That makes us the second

largest bilateral donor in the world. Last week we committed ?275

million to be spent in Turkey, country that is hosting over 2

million refugees. In February, the UK will seek to raise further

significant new funding bikers hosting a donor's conference in

London together with Germany, Norway, Kuwait and the UN. None of

this is a substitute for the most urgent need of all, to find a

political solution that brings peace to Syria and enables millions of

refugees to return home. Yesterday held talks with President Putin and

we review the progress made by our foreign ministers in Vienna to

deliver a transition in Syria. We still have disagreements and there

are big gaps between us that there is progress. I also met with

President Obama and European leaders at the G20 and we agreed some

important steps forward including basing some British aircraft,

alongside other Nato allies at the airbase if that is the decision.

These would be in an air defence role to support the at this

difficult time. We have to step up our joint effort to deal with Isil

in Iraq and Syria and wherever it manifests itself. This raises

important questions for our country. We must ask ourselves if we really

are doing all we can be doing, all we should be doing, to deal with the

threat of ice still -- Isil and the threat it poses. Not just through

measures at home but by dealing with Isil on the ground in the territory

that it controls. We are taking part in air over Iraq and we have

struggled over 350 targets and significant action has been taken in

the recent hours. Isil is not just present in Iraq, it operates across

the border in Syria, border that is meaningless to it because Isil, this

is all one space. It is in Syria comment Raqqa where Isil has its

headquarters. It is from Raqqa where the main threats are orchestrated.

Isil is the head of the snake. In Syria we are supporting our allies,

Jordan, with intelligence and surveillance and refuelling. I

believe, as I have said many times before, we should be doing more. We

face a direct threat to our country and we need to deal with it, not

just in Iraq but in Syria also. I have always said there is a strong

case first doing so and our allies are asking us to do this and a case

for doing so has grown stronger after the Paris attacks. We cannot

expect and should not expect others to carry the burdens and the risks

of protecting our country. Now, I recognise that there are concerns in

this house. What difference would action by the UK will you make? Did

make the situation worse? How does the recent Russian action affect the

situation? How would a decision by Britain to join strikes against Isil

in Syria fit into a conference of strategy for dealing with Isil and

diplomatic strategy to bring the war in Syria to an end? I understand

these concerns and I know they must be answered. I believe they can be

answered. Many of them were expressed in the recent report with

the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Mike firm conviction as

we need to act against Isil in Syria. There is a compelling case

for doing so. It is that the Government to make that case to this

house and to the country. I can announce that as an important step

to do so, I will respond personally to the report of the Foreign Affairs

Select Committee and set out our comprehensive strategy for dealing

with Isil, our vision for a more peaceful Middle East and this

strategy in my view, should include taking the action in Syria I have

spoken about. I have been setting out the arguments in this way, I can

help build support ride across this house for the action I believe is

necessary to take. That is what I am going to be putting in place over

the coming days and I hope colleagues from across the House

will engage with that and make clear their views, so we can have a strong

vote in this House of Commons and do the right thing for our country.

Finally, the G20 also addressed the longer term threats to global

security. In two weeks' time, we will gather in Paris to agree a

global charmer change deal. This time, unlike Kyoto, it will include

the USA and China. At this summer I urged leaders to keep the ambition

of limiting global warming by 2050 to less than 2 degrees above

preindustrial levels. Every country needs to put forward its programme

for reducing carbon emissions. As G20 countries, we need to do more to

provide the financing that is needed to help poorer countries from around

the world switched to greener forms of energy. Also to adapt to the

effects of climate change. We agreed we should do more to wipe out the

corruption that chokes off development and deal with

antimicrobial resistance. Corruption is the cancer as so many of the

things that happened today, from migrants fleeing states, from

Government is undermining our efforts on global poverty by

preventing people from getting the revenues and services that there's.

If antibiotics stop working properly, the antimicrobial

resistance issue will happen and many people will die. This is one of

the things the UK is taking a lead on. Let me return to the terrorist

threat. In UK, the prelate is severe which means an attack is highly

likely and will remain so. -- the threat is severe. We will do all we

can to support our police and intelligence agencies as they were,

clock. The terrorist aim is clear. It is to divide us and destroy our

way of life. Now, more than ever, we must come together and stand united,

carrying on with the life that we know and love. Tonight, England will

play France as Wembley. This match is going ahead. Our people stand

together and as they have done so many times throughout history when

faced with evil. Once again, together, we will prevail and I

commend this statement to the House. Firstly, I thank the Prime Minister

for his statement, which is kindly sent me a copy of earlier. Can I

also thank him for the measured and careful tone of his public

statements since the dreadful events of last Friday in Paris? In the face

of such tragic events, and the horror and sorrow which have caused

the British public to stand up in solidarity with the people of

France, it is right we take an approach of solidarity with them.

The Prime Minister and Home Secretary has spoken of reaching

consensus in reaching a common objective in trying to defeat Isil.

I agree with him and the opposition stands ready to work with him to

that end. Can I also thank him for the briefing we received last week.

On behalf of these benches, I wish to express my condolences and

solidarity with the people of Paris in the wake of the horrific and

unjustified attacks on the people of that city last week. That extends to

the victims of all terrorism, whether they be in Paris, Beirut,

and or even in Syria itself will stop these contestable attacks were

an attempt to divide Muslims Christians, Hindus and Jews, people

of all faiths. They will fail. Secondly, I wish to take a moat to

praise the efforts of the emergency service workers in Paris and

elsewhere who sprang into action in these dreadful situations and help

to save lives. It is easy to forget the heroism of those involved in

city going to work, not knowing what will happen. It is not easy to drive

an ambulance, not knowing what you will find when you arrive at the

scene. In my letter to Francois Hollande this weekend, I said that

we stand united with his country in exposing our condemnation of those

who carried out these atrocities. These events are a reminder to all

of the presence of instrument by -- indiscriminate violence. Yesterday,

my right honourable friend, played for support -- pledged support for

the Government at this time. Can he confirmed that this intelligence

will be balanced with the need to pick our civil liberties which was

so hard in this country and so stoutly defended by many of us? They

are part of what this thing wishes us from many other regimes around

the world, indeed regimes from which people are fleeing. The right moral

member for the said yesterday that it should be protection of the

policing Budget and services which will be playing a vital role on the

ground in insuring our committee are safe. Can the premise to confirm

that he is willing to work with us to prevent cuts to the police force

to ensure they are able to continue with the work they have to do? Does

he agree with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that committee

support officers bring in vital intelligence. I appreciate the work

that they do. A subcommittee cohesion, we are proud to live in a

diverse and multi-faith society. We stand for the unity of all

communities. The Muslims in this country are as appalled by the

attacks as anyone else. We have seen in the past, after atrocities like

this, there can be a backlash against the Muslim and other

committees. This has no place in our society and ill be no tolerance for

that after these events. Will the Prime Minister set out in more

detail the steps the governorate is taking to work with representative

organisations of all about faith communities to ensure that we

achieve and strengthen community cohesion at these very difficult

times? We must also ensure that those entering the country, whether

refugees or visitors, are obviously appropriately screened? Will the

Home Office provide the border staff to do this? It is also important in

the circumstances that we maintain our humanitarian duty towards

refugees. The Syrian refugees are fleeing the deadly brutality of Isil

and it is our duty to protect them, and our legal obligation under the

1951 Geneva Convention. I hope the primer stop will confirm that our

obligation to maintain support for that convention and the rights of

refugees will be undiminished by the events of the last few days. It is

vital at a time of such tragedy and outrage not to be drawn into

responses which feed a cycle of violence and hatred. President Obama

has said that Isis grew out of our invasion of Iraq and is one of its

unintended consequences. When the Prime Minister consider this as one

of the very careful responses that President Obama has made on this

matter. It is essential that any military response not only has

consent but the support of the international community and

crucially the legality from the United Nations. Can I therefore

welcome the primer stop's welcomes at the G20 yesterday, when he said,

I think people want to know there is a whole plan for the future of

Syria, for the future of our region and it is perfectly right to say a

few bombs and missiles will not transform the situation. Can I

welcome his commitment to respond personally to the Foreign Affairs

Committee report which has been so carefully presented to the House and

to the country will stop will he confirm that before bringing any

motion to the House, she will provide full answers, as he has

indicated he will, to the seven questions raised by the report? Will

he also say more about the particular contribution that Britain

has made to the Vienna talks on the future of Syria? They provide a

basis for possibly some cautious optimism that there could be a

political future in Syria that involves a ceasefire and the ability

of people to be able to return home. Will he also say, and this is the

final point I want to make on this, what more can be done to cut off

supplies of weapons and external markets to our -- to Isil. What is

being done to ensure that they do not end up in worse hands including

those of Isil and some of these extremist jihadist groups in Syria?

Also, what more can be done to bring to account those governments

organisations or banks that are funding these extremists for up

turning a blind aye to them? I wonder if the Prime Minister had a

chance to graduate the new Canadian Prime Minister. He did not mention

it, but I'm sure he has. The slowdown in the global economy is

causing concerns and I wonder if he has had conversations about more

demand being sucked out of the economy at this time. He mentioned

the climate change talks that will be going on in Paris in the next

couple of weeks. They are very important indeed, and I welcome his

commitment concerning epidemics and the problems created by the lack of

antibiotics. We have to combat climate change globally,

internationally, and here in Britain.

I thank the right honourable Jedward for his remarks and the tone that he

is taking in trying to aim for greater consensus. I will answer the

questions in turn. First, on the issue of the briefing on national

security issues, that is something that is available to all privy

counsellors and if it is not offered, please do ask. That is the

national security secretary at, they are there to help in these times of

heightened alert. He is right to praise the emergency services in

France, they did an amazing job. It is important to reiterate that, ever

since, and the Home Secretary did this yesterday, since the Mumbai

attacks and since the intelligence we had about the potential for

marauding firearms attacks, more work has been done in Britain to

make sure we are ready for any such attack. I thank him for his support

for the security services comedy is to mention the importance of our

civil liberties, they are part of what we are fighting to protect. We

have protected policing budgets in the last bollard and we will do that

through this Parliament will stop I think that is vital and you can see

the uplift that we are giving to the security services, and we will build

we can to keep this country safe. He is right to condemn anti-Semitism,

is a phobia and right-wing -- Islam a phobia, and right-wing racism.

Some of the things that have been said by Muslim clerics and leaders

have made a huge difference in recent weeks. He asked about the

borders. We do have the opportunity to carry out screening and checks in

our borders because we didn't join the no Borders system and we're not

going to. This shows once again the importance of having those border

controls and using them to the best of our ability. In terms of the

Syrian migrant programme, it is worth the money the House that we

are taking 20,000 Syrian refugees from the camps rather than from

those who have already arrived in Europe. This enables us to screen

carefully those people we take. There are two levels of screening,

to make sure that we are getting people who are genuinely fleeing

persecution and would not pose a risk to our country. He asked about

the genesis of Isil. What I would say to him is it is one of the

branches of this violent Islamic extremism -- Islamist extremism that

we have seen. It is worth making the point that the first manifestations

of this pilot Islamist extremism, not least the Twin Towers attack,

that happened before the invasion of Iraq. It is important we don't try

to sneak excuses for what is a death cult that has been killing British

citizens for many years. He rightly asks about the process in Vienna, we

are a key part of that. The Foreign Secretary has been playing a key

roll in that. John Kerry commended his work to me yesterday. He

mentioned the additional bombs and missiles going so far in Syria. I

think Britain can do more and Britain, because of our expertise

and our targeting, actually can cut the number of civilian casualties

when this action is taken. I think it would make a difference but I

think, yes, alongside that, we also need a process that delivers a

government in Syria that camera present all of the Syrian people.

You cannot defeat Isil purely by a campaign from the air, you need to

have a government in Iraq and a government in Syria that can be your

partner in delivering good government to those countries and

obliterating the death cult that threatens both us and them. The

things go together. That is the point I am making. We asked about

cutting the supply of weapons and money, we are 80 part of the

committee working on that. A large part of the money comes from the oil

it sells to the Syrian regime. Another thing we will be able to

address more directly if we are taking part in the action in Syria.

Finally, he asked if I met the new Canadian prime Esther, I

congratulate it on his victory and he is coming to London shortly to

see the Queen and also I will have a meeting with him. There are lots of

issues where we work together. In terms of the economic slowdown, he

is right that the forecast for global growth is lower than what

they were. Britain and America stand they were. Britain and America stand

out as having more rapid economic growth and we encourage others to

take some of the steps we have taken to deliver that growth. Finally, he

asked about renewables and climate change. I would say to the House

that the summit on climate change was disappointing, there is still

quite a lot of opposition from some countries to really put in place the

things that are needed for a good deal in Paris. But I think Britain

can say we have played an important role in getting a good European deal

and in terms of renewable energy, if you look at what has happened in the

last five years, there is nothing short of a renewable energy

revolution in Britain. The continued reach and activity of

Isis represents a security challenge. The aim was to degrade

and contain them, but they are not contained. Can I thank my right

honourable friend for what he said yesterday about the need to cut off

the financial surprise to Isis about the need to deal with the narrative

over values and what he has said today about the need to join our

allies in taking action over Syria as well as Iraq? No military

campaign of this nature has ever been won from the air alone, so can

I say to him that we may require an international coalition on the

ground of the sort that we require to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Can I

ask him to rule nothing out and give no comfort to Isis because these

people hate us not because of what we do but because of who we are? We

should be in the business of working out what we can do and what would

make a difference rather than what we can do. It is my contention that

in the end, the best partner we can have for defeating Isil in Iraq is

the Iraqi Government and the best partner we can have in Syria is a

reformed Government in Syria without Assad at its head that can represent

all of the Syrian people and be a partner for getting rid of this

death cult that threatens the Syrian people as well as the rest of us. My

thanks to the Prime Minister for advanced sight of his statement and

we welcome the commitment to brief all parties on the House on major

developments. Can I satiate the S with expressions of sadness with the

people of France and all families and friends of those killed in the

Paris attacks. -- SNP. Will he confirm that all assistance

including intelligence information is being shared with our allies in

France? In the UK, we are hugely indebted to all of those in our

police and security services who worked to keep us safe. We welcome

the commitment by the Prime Minister to provide necessary funding and

personnel to allow them to do this vital work. Given the scale of the

disaster in Syria, we welcome the progress at the talks in Vienna and

at the G20 in Turkey. For the first time, there appears to be momentum

building to secure a ceasefire to work with you and and combat

terrorism. Can the Minister update the House on the next diplomatic

steps towards a potential ceasefire and political transition in Syria?

Recent weeks and months, there has been large-scale bombing operations

in Syria. There has been bombing by the United States, bombing by

Russia, bombing by France and many other countries. There have been

bombs dropped by drones, bombs dropped from fast jets and missiles

fired from naval vessels. President Obama has reiterated providing boots

on the ground. Does the Minister agree that the long-term solution

for Syria is an end to the Civil War and support forces like the Kurds

who are currently fighting Dyer shone the ground. We have seen the

rivals of refugees from Glasgow. -- in Glasgow. Does the Prime Minister

agree that the welcome we give to these refugees is the true mark of

humanity of decency and compassion, in short, the complete opposite that

was visited on Paris by terrorists last Friday? First of all, on the

issue of briefings, he is now a privy Counsellor on the intelligence

and security committee. He asked about intelligence sharing. We are

strong on intelligence sharing with the French Government and others in

Europe and I think there's more we can do. I spoke to the Belgian Prime

Minister yesterday to talk about increasing the extent of our

intelligence sharing and stop that is a vital important agenda to help

us move on. On Vienna, there is momentum behind these talks and the

foreign ministers will be meeting in the coming weeks. Right now, the

role is to bring different parties together. It is vital that some of

the Syrian position groups are involved in this dialogue. We want a

future Syria where many people are represented and that means the

Russians should stop bombing the free Syria army and be part of the

future. How much can be done from the air? We need an end to this

Syria war but we need to support the Kurds. Some of that support can be

developed from the air. They need our help to bring this conflict to

an end. Let me commend what Glasgow was doing in taking Syrian refugees.

I am confident we will have 1000 here by Christmas and I know they

will be well looked after. Can I thank the Minister for his reply.

His acknowledgement that the defeat of Isil requires a transition out of

the Syrian war. The progress made Vienna is beginning to clear the

path towards an international plan that would enable that forward

conventional military defeat of so-called Islamic state in both

Syria and Iraq. Will he continue to put our full diplomatic effort into

making that plan sufficiently clear, politically, military and

legally, so he can come to the House to seek an endorsement of a role for

our Armed Forces that will lead to the defeat of Isil in both Syria and

Iraq sooner rather than later? Can I thank my right honourable friend for

his support. I will recognise what he has said today. Our full

diplomatic effort is to bring everyone together. Sitting around

the table in Arabia are Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, Turkey, all

the key players, Russia, all the key players are there. In terms of the

legal basis for any action we might take, I could answer that question

comprehensively and am happy to put that in front of the House as part

of my response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The

promise to one know of Isil want to exploit the refugee crisis and also

to poison European attitudes to those that are fleeing the barbarism

that we saw on the streets of Paris. He has told me before that Britain

is supporting proffer -- proper registration increase. I am

concerned that is not happening. When he look again urgently at what

Britain and Europe can do to support proper registration and border

checks, not just in Greece, but in internal borders throughout Europe,

so we can make sure we provide both security and humanitarian aid that

we desperately need so Britain and Europe can support both our security

and our solidarity with desperate refugees? She is right that as the

external border of Europe, Greece plays a vital role and the

registration of migrants as they arrive is vital that that takes

place properly. When it comes to the European Asylum support, we have

given more than any other country in Europe. We are putting the resources

in, even though Greece is not our external border. Our external border

is the border controls at Calais. We are not -- we are doing what we can

and will continue to do more but making sure people are properly

documented as they arrive is a vital part of our security. The planned

carnage in Paris shows the danger of allowing jihadists to return to

their country of origin. We who -- will he review the counterterrorism

legislation to prevent declared UK jihadists from to Joan dashed from

return to the UK whatever human rights or the Charter of fundamental

rights may say? We must put the people of this country and their

lives before human rights. I have a huge amount of sympathy with it and

that is why in the counterterrorism legislation that we passed, we took

further steps to confiscate people's passports. If someone is a dual

national, we can strip them of their UK citizenship if they no longer

merit citizenship of this country. We have the temporary power now to

temporarily exclude even British national was from returning to the

UK. I am all for looking at options for going further on these measures

to make sure we keep yourself safe but it was contentious at the time

as I think this is demonstrated we were right to stick to our guns. I

would like to thank the promise of the advanced side of his statement

and to join him and colleagues on all sides here today in expressing

solidarity, compassion and sympathy to the people of Paris and Beirut

and to the injured and those who have lost their lives and the

families of them and to condemn the terrorists who seek to attack us.

They detest our diversity, our freedom and our generosity of spirit

and we let them win if we come from eyes on any of those things. It is

critical that any UK military involvement in Syria should focus on

civilian protection and political transition, alongside crushing I

still -- Isil. Does the Prime Minister agree that the long-term

stability in Syria must be part of the strategy against Isil and will

he confirm that any plan brought Parliament by the Government to use

our Armed Forces there will specifically address this? Let me

say how I think he is right to mention the bombing in Beirut

because some people want to see this as a clash of civilisations. The

Islamic world against the rest. The Beirut bomb, so the many bombs

before it, this proves Isil are killing Muslims in their hundreds

and thousands. It is very important to demonstrate to Muslim communities

in our own countries that we take this violence as seriously as

violence when it is committed in Paris or elsewhere. Yet at what we

would do in Syria and civilian protection, yes it would be about

civilian protection in the obvious way. If we can take out the

murderers of Isil, we are helping to protect the Syrian people who they

are threatening. Also because Britain has munitions that are more

effective than some of the things the Americans have. It would mean a

better targeting of the people who should be targeted and fewer

civilian casualties. In his welcome statement today, my right honourable

friend is clearly right to focus on the political track in the Syrian

negotiations. Building in part on the Kofi Annan proposals from some

time ago but also the significant progress that appears to be made in

Vienna last week. If those negotiations are successful, that

will remove a huge barrier to the widespread military coalition that

all of us want to see and in which Britain, as he said today, would

have the ability and a number of unique assets to play a very

significant part. If those negotiations in Vienna are

successful, I have no doubt the prime minister coming back to this

house will get a huge majority of members from both sides in

Britain's for participation in it. What I would say to my right

honourable friend, is, of course, as I said to defeat Isil in Syria, two

things are required. We do need to make sure the international

community, Arab states and others, are taking the military action to

degrade and defeat I still -- Isil but we need a solution that gives us

an effective ally in Syria to defeat Isil in a way that can unite the

country. His -- if he is arguing that military action should only

follow after some political agreement has been nailed down, I

think we might be waiting a long time for that to happen. I would

caution against that approach. I want to be clear what I am proposing

here. The Government will bring together all of its arguments about

how we succeed in Iraq, how we succeed in Syria, what a political

process should achieve, how we degrade and defeat Isil, the role

Britain should play. My argument that we should be going forward in

Syria. Put those arguments together and it will be members -- for

members of this house that want to assent to this idea. If that

happens, then we can have the vote and take action so we are playing a

part with others in defence of our own national security. Can I say I

am very conscious that there are many colleagues here who cannot be

accused of underestimating their own expertise in these important

matters, but there are nearly 60 people still wishing to contribute

and if I am having any chance of accommodating them all, they will

all need to follow the rubric of brevity now to be demonstrated to

perfection. I welcome the commitment to a wider narrative of explaining

how he thinks they can be defeated. His insistence that it can be done

with our allies. Press reports suggest France has invoked a clause

in the Lisbon Treaty for the first time. Could the Prime Minister

explain what the implications would be for Britain? It is not a clause

that has been invoked before. Standing back from the legalities of

it. The French are our friends and allies, our brothers and sisters and

we should be with them. If there are things to two help them, we should

help them. Given the extreme circumstances of a Paris type attack

in London, does my right honourable friend think that depriving the

police of the right to shoot to kill would make public safer?

I absolutely don't. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will review

his remarks. When you're combating a terrorist attack, when you look at

what happened in Paris, it was not a siege, they were not taking hostages

and making demands, they were killing as many people as possible.

When the police are confronted by that, if it is clear they have to

take out a terrorist to save lives, they should go ahead and do so. Is

is he aware of us who are not convinced that extending the attacks

in Syria, it is not because we are pacifist or semi-pacifist, or

because of the internal politics of the Labour Party, it is because that

the Foreign Affairs Committee has concluded that there does not seem

to be a strong case for extending air strikes, that it will achieve

little or nothing and Sibley make us feel good and that we're doing

something as a result of the atrocities? I don't agree with that

view. I respect the fact that it is for the Government to bring forward

the argument, to make the case and seek to persuade as many men as of

this House that it is the right thing to do. I think the people who

oppose this have to answer the question, why is it right to take

out I Isil in Iraq, but not in Syria, when it is in Syria that the

headquarters is based and that is where are the attacks on this

country have been planned. I'm not asking for an over warming majority,

a majority will be good enough, to come forward and say it is right for

us to take this action. The premises only too aware that given the nature

of those returning... What measures can we take to encourage those to

speak out against what has happened. My honourable friend is right. There

are huge and others in Britain's Muslim communities who made clear

that what is being done by Isil is not in their name, they are not

representatives of Islam, they are perversion of Islam. I encourage

those who have made such an effort to continue to do that. He is right,

those who have been to Syria, as part of an aid convoy, who have seen

what has happened and have come back, disillusioned by the butchery

of these people, by their hatred of people with different ways of life,

by the appalling way they treat women, by the way they throw gay

people off the top of buildings, people come back disillusioned, they

could be some of the loudest voices, saying that these are people

we have to finish. We have experienced over many years, the

ravages of terrorism personally and close quarters, we will express our

support for his words and actions in the of days after these events. For

the Prime Minister agreed that the security need the resources, and I

welcome what has been said in recent days, they need their powers, and we

look forward to working with the Government to introducing more

powers, but they also need the public support and the support of

politicians. When they need to shoot to kill, they need to shoot to kill.

I welcome what the Prime Minister said, for saying that the victims

contributed to their own demise. Terrorism has no excuses. It never

had any excuses and the people who expressed such sentiment should be

ashamed of themselves. As has often been the case in recent days and

recent weeks, the honourable gentleman speaks with great power

and great force and I agree with what he says. As well as action from

our Armed Forces, security forces and police, we also need to tackle

the ideology that lies behind the threat that we face. Does the Prime

Minister agree that as part of that we need to support those who

challenge the extremists, expose it as a death cult and also support the

communities who feel vulnerable and help stop people sliding into

extremism. I think my honourable friend is right. For too long in

some European countries, governments have felt that the way to handle

community relations is to leave people into different silos and

listen to self appointed community leaders, rather than engaging

directly with people, and when it comes to this battle against

extremism, we should not be neutral, we should be clear about those

groups we shall deal with because they share our values, and those we

don't agree with because they are part of a greater problem. I

expected will be necessary not only in Britain but in other parts of

Europe as well. Last Friday evening at Wembley Stadiums, whether Prime

Minister shared a platform, she made this age about being proud to be the

leader of the most mighty cultural -- most multicultural country in the

world. In order to protect that, does he agree, we need to be more

aggressive, which includes the Internet Company is doing more than

they are currently doing in order to take away the most important method

of recruitment. Internationally, it means working with Europol and

Interpol, giving them the support they need as it is an international

issue. What I said standing alongside the Indian prime and

estate is that we have to fight discrimination and racism in this

country and we can lay some claim to being one of the most successful

multiracial, multi-faith, multiethnic democracy is in our

world, something India aspires to do as well, it is something that should

link us. He is right about the issue of Internet companies, just as we

worked with them to try and take paedophilia and child pornography on

the Internet, there is more we can do to get extremism of the Internet

as well. The Prime Minister was right to focus on a multifaceted

approach. When it comes to military intervention in Syria, we must learn

from previous errors and try to ensure that we put together a proper

strategy involving regional powers and allies, including Iran and

Russia, which might have to recognise that Isil is the grated

danger than President Assad because we also need to accept that air

strikes alone will not defeat the evil regime. My honourable friend is

right that we need to bring together an international coalition in Syria

and that is what we are doing. Iran, Saudi Arabia, France and others are

in the room together, negotiating this. That is how it should be. We

also have to have a regard to our own national security, and every day

that Isil is active in Iraq and Syria is a day that we are in some

danger in our own country. The Prime Minister is right that the police

and the security services need our full support at this time. But

shouldn't it be immediately obvious to everyone that the police need the

full and necessary powers, including the proportionate use of lethal

force if need be, to keep our committees safe. -- our communities

safer. He is right. The old saying that the police other public the

public are the police is true. They are not some occupying force. It is

right that they are confronting murderers with weapon, they have to

be able to take legal action and I hope that the Leader of the

Opposition will think carefully about what he said. It is important

we support the police in the work they do rather than undermine it.

Can my honourable friend set up the plans to enhance airport security,

given what happened to the Russian plane # the Russian security forces

are making clear that they believe it was a bomb that brought down that

aircraft after it left Egypt. It was an issue I discussed with President

Putin yesterday. What we need to do is work with others to look at the

most vulnerable locations around the world, and work out how we can make

them more safe. There is no 100% security you can deliver even in the

most advanced airport. There are basic things about scanners, the

weight luggage is handled, about how passengers interact with their

luggage. Best practice needs to be introduced around the world. If a

broad international coalition is not just possible but necessary in

Syria, what is the obstacle to a Security Council resolution? On that

subject, can the Prime Minister tell us what the opticals are to cutting

off the finances of the Brahim Abdeslam question the obstacles have

been that one of the permanent members has threatened to veto

meaningful Security Council actions to stop I will answer the question

directly that the action I believe we should take is legal under

international law. I know that should be spelt out clearly and I

will spell it out clearly. In terms of disrupting the finances, we are

part of the committee looking at all of the action that can be taken,

including against financial institutions. One of the most

important things we can do is stop their funding through the oil

trade, some of which they are selling direct to President Assad.

Earlier this year, Morocco signed an agreement with France to train in

... Will he commend their further

efforts as far as the UK is concerned, we can learn some of the

lessons that France is carrot Leander going? -- is currently

undergoing. The work Germany has been doing with Turkish imams. One

of the things about the G20 is the conversation about fighting

radicalisation, the Indonesian president and the Malaysians

president, both countries that pride themselves on being part of the

moderate Muslim world, they were particular powerful to listen to.

Whilst we differ on the details of how to ensure that citizens are kept

safe, I agree it is the Government to make sure that they are. In that

vein, can he assure us that as well as giving money to the security

services, he will make a significant investment in a diplomatic

services, who are world-class and they are needed more than ever. They

play a vital role in out soft power. We were ranked as another one in the

world for soft power. We have been opening embassies around the world

other than closing them. It is a good opportunity to thank all of our

hard-working staff from this dispatch box. To counter the

apparent slaughter that was faced by those in Paris, we will need armed

police on the spot in minutes. Can my honourable friend reassure the

House that we have sufficient police to do all that? My honourable friend

is right to rate this and following the Mumbai attacks and the

intelligence we had after that of potential attacks in this country, a

lot of work was done to ensure that the armed response vehicles we have

have sufficient numbers of people to meet the challenge in our major

urban areas. We keep this under review, we are studying what

happened in Paris. We are looking at the numbers we need. I think the

idea of routinely arming all of the police in our country is not the

right approach but certainly increasing the number of armed

police that are available, that is something that we are looking at

and, if necessary, we will do that. Although we don't talk about the

role of our special forces, they are also available to help in the

circumstances and, again, we will do everything we can to make sure they

can be brought to bear at the right moment and can help in dealing with

what are challenging problems thrown up by what happened in Paris. Does

the Prime Minister agree that full responsibility for the attacks in

Paris lies solely with the terrorists, and that any attempt by

any organisation to somehow blame the West or France's military

intervention in Syria, is not only wrong, disgraceful but should be

condemned? The response across the House shows how right the honourable

lady is. It is worth remembering, for those who think that this was

caused by Iraq, France did not take part in the Iraq war, they condemned

it. These terrorists hate our way of life, they want to kill and maim as

many people as possible, they also do this to Muslims with whom they

disagree and that is why we must not excuse in any way this vile

organisation. Can I welcome the premised's statement, particularly

his commitment to come to the House with an argument for extending our

presence in Syria. The threat we face is such a threat to our

national security, it is timely that he may have to take action as Prime

Minister without coming to this House in order to protect and

national security is to? I have always had clearly that, in the case

of the meditated action, for instance against Isil in Syria, then

it is right that we have a debate and a vote and I'm happy to repeat

that again. I do reserve the right, taking action international interest

where you have to take action quickly, rapidly, and you need the

competition at a, I am prepared to do that. -- confidentiality. It was

right to take that action and explain afterwards. I will try to

stick to that clear demarcation. That is the right approach for our

country. I work in the premised's statement and I expect that sensible

people will support sensible measures in the days and weeks

ahead. Has the governor given any consideration to the way in which

the Government of Saudi Arabia exports and encourages

radicalisation, and is this something we should address to make

sure that they do not radicalise people in the UK? He makes an

important point. I met with the King of Saudi Arabia at the G20 and we

discussed the situation in Syria. It is fair to say that Saudi Arabia has

a strong deep radicalisation programme for its own citizens who

have become extremists and it has become successful in that. We do

need to focus on how we stop people setting off down the path to

extremism in the first place. That is important in terms of what is

taught in schools and how it is taught and how we make sure that in

all about educational practices around the world is, that we are

teaching tolerance and understanding from the start.

I fully support the Prime Minister in having those discussions. Is it

the case that the Government is trying to work towards getting into

the UN Security Council resolution? We keep talking about potential

resolutions that we can put forward on any number of issues to deal with

this overall problem. In terms of something that takes military action

that we have spoken about in this house, that hasn't been possible

until now because of the Russian veto. It is possible to act with

international law, without an international council resolution. We

cannot outsource our community to end international veto. I reject the

view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a

reaction to what we in the West do. Does he agree with me that such an

approach risks infantilising the terrorists and treating them as

children when we are adults are entirely responsible for what they

do? No one forces them to kill innocent people in Paris or Beirut

and unless we are clear about that, we will not be able to confront it

and understand it? It is that intellectual clarity that is

necessary in dealing with terrorists. I know there is

something to find an explanation but sometimes the answer is staring us

in the face. The people of Colchester and North Essex mourned

the loss of Nick Alexander. He died with many others. Can you pay

tribute to make but reform our resolve that we will not allow these

murderous cowers to destroy our way of life? I pay tribute to him and

our thoughts are with his family and friends. What Isil was trying to do

was to destroy our way of life and our value systems and the things

that people like to do in their spare time. One of the most

important things we can do, alongside these security responses

is to go on living our lives. Can I thank their promise of a statement

and behalf -- on Dombey half of myself and my colleagues of the

SDLP, I would like to convey our sympathy and outrage to terrorism.

From Northern Ireland, we know what that was like so many years. In so

doing, we note that the Prime Minister is coming back to the House

with a full competence of strategy in so doing, quickly define the term

that he referred to earlier? Action that would be legal under

international law. What I have said I will do is part of the strategy

that I will lay out, is set out as one part of that strategy why I

think we should be taking action not just in Iraq but in Syria and in

doing so we will set out the legal advice for that. I think it is

important that the House sees that. You can already see with the action

we are taking in Iraq, that we are taking action at the request of the

legitimate Iraqi Government. You can see with the action we have taken so

far against them, that that was on the basis of self defence of the

United Kingdom. I can lay out these arguments about why we should be

doing it and how we will help to keep yourself safe, but I will make

sure it addresses those legal arguments as well. With the second

massacre in Paris last weekend, our own citizens in Tunisia murdered and

the plethora of massacres over the last year, can I say that now is not

the time for the jerk reactions but a time to reflect and plan

effectively. Can I ask my right honourable friend if he will do

everything in his power to stop and destroy this murderous regime for

the sake of our own national security, for which he has my 100%

support come as no doubt he does further members in this house? When

something like Paris happens, it is worth asking the question about how

we would response -- respond to this. That is what we are doing and

it is right that we do. The Prime Minister's content and tone of his

statement spoke not just for the Government, but for the country.

Can... He referred to the retaking of sin job by Kurdish forces

supported by the international coalition. I was with the Kurds in

Iraq at the front line south. Those Kurdish forces are brave and putting

their lives on the line every day. Along with the Syrian Kurds, can we

do more to provide material support for the Iraqi Kurdistan people and

pending a dissertation on whether we go into Syria, give more support

from the air to the Kurds in Iraq now? The answer to his question is,

yes, we are providing training and support to the Kurdish forces and

they are incredibly brave and dedicated. They have done a

brilliant job liberating people from Isil dominance. We discussed with

President Obama and the French, German and Italian leaders what more

we can do. Germany is doing a lot in that area and there is more that we

can do. I welcome my right honourable friend's commitment to

defeating Isil in Syria as well as in Iraq and his commitment to either

case to this house and to the electrodes. Can I ask him to do so

as part of a long-term vision for stability in region? People want to

know that our response is not driven by anger but is driven by resolve

and is thoughtful and thought through and will make us safer and

the region more stable. I am convinced we can answer all those

questions in the document I will put in front of the House. Can I talk

about the comments talking about the refugees arriving in Glasgow today.

With regard to the Paris climate change talks, what discussions were

held at the due 20 and whether he plans to attend those talks in Paris

as an act of leadership and solidarity? -- G20. I will be there

at the start of the talks on Monday. The discussions at the G20 were

positive in that everyone committed to having the aim of below 2

degrees. My concern is that some of the things that are necessary to

make this agreement really meaningful like five-year reviews

and the rest of it, there is still some opposition from some countries

to that and we haven't had every country's independent proposal to

how they reduce their own carbon emission. We can use the

Commonwealth conference for part of that and Britain is playing a part.

There will be an agreement and it will involve Russia and China and we

are backing for aggrieved do -- back in for a good agreement other than a

mediocre one. Will he agree that our overriding priority must be the

security of our country and its people. Recognising that the threat

we face from terrorists today is not just about bullets and bombs, but

about cyber attacks and will he ensure we have the right funding and

organisations in place to deal with this threat? We deface cyber attacks

not just from states but from radical groups and individuals. It

should be a major feature of the Strategic Defence Review that we

discussed. The first thing is to protect our citizens and the Prime

Minister has set out the steps required to do that, for which it is

welcome. Could he say some more about what steps he will take to

secure action against those who are buying goods of contraband from

Isil, not just the Syrian Government but of individuals and companies.

There is the sale of antiquities, which she might be referring to, as

well as the sale of oil and we are trying to crack down on all of those

things and we are looking at what more we might have to do in this

country to ascend to some of the conventions in that area. It is

reasonable to move on at two o'clock. Can I appeal for brevity.

Along with the honourable member for Ilford South and South Antrim and

Barrow, I join them on the front line against Isil in Iraqi Kurdistan

where we saw the amazing work that the Peshmerga is doing in taking

back territory and communities from that evil existence. We visited some

refugee and displacement camps and saw families affected. Would my

right honourable friend agree with me that we need to ensure that we

are protecting those minorities in the Middle East? At finding and

making sure both Iraq and Syria are countries and governments that

represent all of their people is vital. I agree with all the comments

about the number one priority of this Government being safeguarding

the national-security of those who represent them but that extends to

every single member of this house. With regard to the use of lethal

force by intelligence and police forces abroad and at home, it is

important that they have the powers necessary to act. It is important

that they act within a legal framework and I welcome the Prime

Minister going to publish the advice on which he intends to act in Syria.

Could he ensure that the basis on which police act on our streets here

is published and made known to those we represent? Let me clarify

something. I am not saying I will publish the legal advice, because

governments have never done that. What I did as Prime Minister in the

last Government and will do again in this, is provide a proper and full

description of what that legal advice says. I know that sounds like

splitting hairs but it is important. As for the issue of the police, I

will ask the Home Secretary to write directly to him about that. The

member firms Bosworth can put a question very likely in a single

sentence. Will the Prime Minister have heard anything about the

partition as a settlement on the line of Cyprus leaving an Isle of

Wight tribal area in the south and free Syria North? I have seen ideas

put forward for these sorts of things. I don't think it is the

right idea. The idea of trying to carve up these countries into a

group will be a mistake. We need to build a Syria that can have a

Government that represents all of its people as Syrians. I have met a

number of Syrians, including a brave citizen journalist who was about to

return to Syria. They are unanimous in calling for a no bombing zone in

Syria to stop civilians being killed by Asad's barrel bombs. Can the

promised to reassure us that he will ensure the views of Syrian civilians

are taken into account to any UK military action? If we were to take

action, it would be to save the lives of Syrian civilians. We also

bought no bombing zones in terms of Asad's stopping the prospect of

raining down barrel bombs with chemical weapons on his own people.

That is why we should be focused on Isil and we cannot forget that

President Assad has been one of the recruiting sergeants for Isil and

his brutality keys providing fresh recruits. The idea you can take

sides and team up with a sad against Isil is a false prospectus.

Can I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. In the light of the

terrorist attacks, I believe our security services need the new

powers set out in the investigatory Powers Bill now. Can I therefore

urge and asked my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, to

consider speeding up the legislated scrutiny procedure and bring forward

the date when this vital Bill will read the statute book? We are

looking at this issue but I would reassure him that most of what the

Bill does is put onto an even clearer statutory footing those

practices currently carried out by our security and intelligence

services. There is one element that is particularly important that is

new, which relates to Internet connection records, which is

probably the most controversial part of the Bill. I don't want to

jeopardise this Bill by rushing it but I hope he is reassured that we

will look at the timing but most of the powers are being put on a

clearer legal basis. Arguably the most successful forces on the ground

have been the Passion ... We have been having with training,

logistical support coming from us, from the Germans, from the

Americans. Obviously, we need to work with all of the countries in

the region to recognise that the Kurds are our allies in this fight,

not least because they are taking it directly to ten Isil. Does the Prime

Minister agree with me that these Kurdish forces now need their fair

share of oil revenues, promised from Baghdad, to help them in the fight

against Isil? My honourable friend has a lot of experience working with

the Kurds. It needs to be honoured properly, because the Iraqi

government needs to make clear that it is they're not just for the sheer

but for the Kurds and the Sunnis as well. Can the primaries to share his

views in light of the G20, of a safe zone within Syria for civilians?

We're always happy to look at these suggestions but when it comes to

save zones, you have to remember that you cannot do declare them

without making them fully safe. In order to do that, you might have to

take very severe military action against Syrian air defences, Syrian

aircraft, Syrian aircraft control, and you have to have the troops to

make that zone safe as well. I think there are problems with the

suggestions. I look at them and I discussed them with the Turks a huge

amount. There is another danger worth thinking about which is there

are 2 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. If they felt a safe zone was

being created in order to push them out of Turkey into Syria, that might

hasten their move to come to Europe. All of these things have to be

considered. At the end of the day, save zones are only proxies what

needs to happen, which is the destruction of Isil at the political

transition in Syria. At least one of the perpetrators came into Europe

under the guise of a refugee. As I welcome the genuine refugees in our

company, I'm need assurance that proper checks are being done to make

sure that other terrorist to not get in in a similar way. He also puts

his question in the right way, we mustn't confuse migration and

terrorism. But we do need to be clear that proper border controls

and checks are necessary to make sure that people who come to our

country do not threaten us. We wanted to keep our own border

controls, and taking out Syrian refugees from the camps allows us to

carry out checks before they take off. The Prime Minister is right,

that greater powers are needed to thwart Internet plots. The Prime

Minister is also right to make available additional resources for

how security services and special forces. Does the Prime Minister not

agree that it would be the worst possible time now to proceed with

the biggest cuts to any police service in Europe which will have a

serious impact on neighbourhood policing, vital to intelligence

gathering, the eyes and ears of local committees. We have protected

counter-terrorism policing budgets in the last Barnard and we will do

the same in this Parliament. The police have shown in the last five

years how well they can do at finding efficiencies and increasing

the number of neighbourhood police officers that are on our streets.

Terrorists and their weapons can enter the UK through any point of

entry, and the ports that mainly handle freight, such as the Humber

port, are particularly vulnerable. Can my right honourable friend

assure me that staff levels for Border Force will be maintained and,

if necessary, enhanced to come back this threat? -- combat this threat?

We are very focused on preventing firearms from entering our country.

That is one of the best ways we can try and defend ourselves from these

appalling attacks. We have an intelligence led model where we try

and use intelligence to make sure that our border security is

delivered in the right way at the right time. But all of the time, we

are asking Border Force weather have -- whether they have what they need.

We discussed this on Saturday. I agree with everything the Prime

Minister said about Syria and terrorism but does he agree with me

that those who say that Paris is reaping the whirlwind Paul Weston

policy, or want -- for Western policy, not just absorbing the

terrorists of responsible at it but risk reinforcing, fuelling the sense

of grievance and resentment which can you develop into extremism and

terrorism. The moment when he very kindly said he agreed with me, and I

agree with him. We have to make it clear to those who are at risk of

being radicalised that this kind of excuse culture is wrong. It is not

only wrong for us to argue, for anyone to argue that Paris was

brought about by Western policy, it is also very damaging for young

Muslims growing up in Britain to think that any reasonable person

could have this view. I agree with him 100%. Does the Prime Minister

believe that any individuals living in the United Kingdom now who have

information about any activities of those who have become radicalised or

are terrorists themselves, are silent a compass is to any cards --

silent accomplices to any carnage that may occur after this, and they

need to pass on this information immediately to save innocent lives?

He makes an important point. He goes to this issue about this idyll that

we have in our country. People who might suspect that a friend or

relative or someone they know has become radicalised or their mind has

become poisoned, they should come forward, secure in the knowledge

that everything we do in this country is done under the law, under

the rule of law. We cannot send that message out clearly enough. In this

age of terrorism, can the Prime Minister spell out how safe the

British people are question I do not set the alert levels, it is right it

should be done by a group of experts, who have set it at severe,

which means they think an attack is likely. The next attack is critical,

when you believe the threat is imminent. That will not happen until

you have some intelligence that will tell you that a threat was imminent.

I say to the British people, we should go about our lives, we should

be vigilant and work with the police and intelligence services where the

can, but never giving to the fact that the terrorists pose because

they want us to change our way of life and to live in fear. That is

what terrorism means. Does my right honourable friend agree that

terrorists issue their trade most effectively through training, and

that requires territory. Action to reduce Isil's territory, whether in

Iraq or Syria or elsewhere is a vital component to ridding the world

of these evil people? My honourable friend is right and it goes to the

point that the honourable member for Dudley made is that so much of what

our policy over previously is has been about is to try and close down

the ungoverned spaces where terrorists are able to stay and are

able to train. That is why we cannot sit back from all of these things,

that is why we are engaged in trying to make Somalia into a proper

functioning country, why we took action in Afghanistan, while the

cannot stand by why they'll -- while their fables to be a covered in

Libya. Then is to be law and order in this country. We don't do this

because we believe in military adventurism, we do it because we

want to keep people safe in our own country. May I joined the Prime

Minister in cautious optimism that the piano process could advance the

prospects of sustainable peace in Syria, important given the huge

numbers that have died there and the millions that have been displaced,

but also the horrors of Paris and Beirut reminders of its importance

in defeating Isil as well. Can I emphasise to him as well be

importance of a strategy being in there. I understand that he will

want to advance the case for military action, but what we will be

looking at is how that fits into a strategy, including what occurs in

the area. There is a strategy and we need to lay out more clearly, and

with the military action that I with the military action that I

think is important and the involvement of neighbouring

countries. In the end, we have to decide whether to take this action

as part of a strategy, but certainly that is my aim in this document that

I will produce. I fully welcome the Prime Minister's statement.

President Hollande has used the words, Europe is at war with Isil.

Can we join our counterparts and use the words ten two.

The use of the word is increasing in every issue of Hansard that is the

gist. We know that this group, they would be equally content to carry

out an attack in Belgium, in Sweden, in Denmark or in Britain. They don't

not do it because they feel that somehow we are different. They just

haven't managed it yet. We have got to stop it. Can I thank the Prime

Minister for his statement, which I fully support? Would he agree that

the multiculturalism of our country is more likely to be destroyed if we

do not take every possible action to defeat these murderous terrorists?

I absolutely agree. As we do so, we need to take everyone in our country

with us. Can I direct the Prime Minister back to the alarming news

that it is reported that 450 valid jihadists have been readmitted to

the UK? Worthy make an undertaking that he will not pull out any action

against these individuals, however tough order cunning, including

revoking their passports in order to protect the British public? He is

right to make this point. What we have is a system for trying to

this way. Some people will come home this way. Some people will

completely disillusioned with what they had seen, because it is an

appalling regime with appalling practices. But there are people who

we will have to keep a close eye on and use all the powers we have at

our discretion. Can I congratulate the Prime Minister in his

leadership, there is clearly a need for a new strategy and that must

come from within this harassment. Is it not time for the members who sit

in this chamber to step back and support the new strategy and protect

all the UK? I am grateful for what he says. I hope that the response to

the Foreign Affairs Select Committee will be something around which

embers of this House can rally, so that we can move forward in a way

that supports our allies and keeps our country safe. The Prime Minister

is aware that the Lancashire Constabulary is one of the leading

forces of the UK infighting radicalisation and terrorism. Could

he update House as to what further steps can we take to ensure our

security services and our police forces cooperate fully with each

other? He makes a good point, we announced additional funding for our

security forces, I have said what I had said about counterterrorism and

policing, but there is a need to continue to work on the Prevent

programme and I am sure there will be something to be addressed by the

Home Office in the Spending Review. Mr Speaker, and I raced to the Prime

Minister disturbing reports of the firebomb attack in the early hours

of this morning against the cultural centre in Bishopbriggs, used by

Muslim constituents of mine? Can also looked into the grotesque

racist attack faced my my colleague Humza Yousef in social media, will

he join me in condemning some of the inflammatory statements in the

press, attempting to link innocent Muslims with extremism? I suddenly

join the honourable gentleman in condemning these attacks. We should

be equally clear that just as anti-Semitism is wrong, Islamophobia

is long, and right wing extremism, attacking people for their religion,

is covertly wrong. I think this is absolutely vital, that we must BVM

at on all these things. -- we must be vehement. We have had an hour and

a half and I think the Prime Minister for his brevity. Can I

gently remind colleagues, if your colleagues who got in had been

briefer, you would have got in. We need to help each other. Point of

order. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. This morning, and at

academics published research in a peer-reviewed journal, estimating

the mental health effects of Government's work capability

assessment process, between 2010 and 2013. The research is the first

population level study which looked at over 1 million work capability

reassessments in 149 local authorities in England and trends in

suicide, self-reported mental health problems and anti-depressant

prescribing rates. They found there is independent cessation of an

additional 590 suicide. 280,000 cases of self-reported mental health

conditions. 725,000 antidepressant prescribes. Mr Speaker, concerns

about the working ability assessment process and other aspects of the

welfare policy have repeatedly been made in this House. In view of the

gravity of the scale and range of impacts of the policy on health of

its citizens, I seek your advice as to how best to get the Secretary of

State to make statement on how he intends to address this appalling

situation. I am very grateful to the honourable lady for her attempt at

Punta Gorda. I know she follows this issue extremely close. -- at a tent

at a point of order. But it is not a point of order, I am afraid, for the

chair. I do not want to dilate on matters that take place outside the

chamber, but what we cannot have, forgive me for saying, but it has to

be said, is a situation in which an attempt to raise a matter through an

urgent question, for example, which is not granted, is then substituted

by an attempt to deal with the motto via a point of order because it

every member did that, we could spend quite long periods each day

with people trying to get in and did not succeed in thinking they could

deal with it to a point of order instead. If she honestly is asking

me for my advice, I am afraid my advice is, written questions through

the order paper, if the honourable lady remains unhappy with the

answers or as she sees it, lack of answers, she can try again to deploy

the mechanism of an urgent question. I am afraid it is for her

to demonstrate why it is urgent for this day, rather than submit a

matter of very great importance and relative topicality. If the

honourable lady wants to apply for an adjournment and debate, of course

she can do that. I think I have shown a considerable readiness, both

to grant new cues and to hear points of order, so I do not intend any

discourtesy to her, she is extremely assiduous in the execution of her

duties, but I do not think I can say more than that today. I am being

fair about it! Well, I think I am, anyway. If there are other points of

order, we had better get them. They may have melted! A couple of other

people who were... Point of order. Last year, HMRC unsourced one of the

functions relating to tax credits to a US-based company, many

constituents have contact me -- contacted me in desperation because

of mistakes made which led to arbitrate cancellations of their tax

credits. There is no way, constituents to contact the

company. HMIC itself has a hotline, but their staff have told me they

cannot get an update on the status of a case because they cannot speak

for or to the company. Hansard has shown members have been Hobbits --

unable to get answers on this company. Is there any guidance you

can give me on how we can best represent our constituents given the

obvious failings of the government agency and its contract? There are

only a couple of points to make in response. First, it is an

expectation that Ministers in relation to matters which fall

within their confidence, and I use that term in the technical sense,

will provide answers that are both timely and substantive. If that has

not been so, or she judges it has not been so, it is disappointing and

I urge the Treasury bench that I urge the Treasury bench that

answers to legitimate questions should be provided and they should

not be alternatives to answers, they should be answers. The second point

is this, it is sometimes necessary and to be expected that the

Government will make certain urgent announcements when the House is not

sitting, and indeed if they did not, they would probably be criticised.

However, I confess I am sympathetic, having studied this matter in

concert with advisers, to the view that has been expressed, not least

by the honourable lady, that the announcement relating to HMIC is the

kind that might reasonably have been expected to be made -- HMRC, I think

it is fair to say that over the last couple of days, there have been

quite exceptionally important matters which have unnaturally

dominated. That said, I hope the Treasury bench will have noted what

has been said and it is open to Ministers to come forward sooner

rather than later with announcements to the House. If they are so minded.

If they are not, even having known the honourable lady only six months,

I rather suspect that she will pursue the matter with her

terrierlike intensity which has thus far been demonstrated to

colleagues! If there are no further points of order, perhaps we can move

to the ten minute rule motion push-up the honourable member for

Gainsborough has been waiting with stoicism and fortitude. Ten minute

rule motion. I beg to move the House of Lords Parliamentary standards etc

bell which stands in my name, and a number of other members of this

House. The fact is, the other place is too large, too political, too

comfortable, and too prone to political patronage. It is time to

reform it. May I say straightaway, I have had responses from several

parties, and this bill assumes that for the time being, the House of

Lords remains appointed. On the of at least one honourable member, who

is in this place now, supporting this bill, I am not saying that the

House of Lords should not be elected or should be appointed, we have had

that debate for 100 years, there is a division of opinion, but we are

where we are. The House of Lords, for the present time and for the

foreseeable future, is appointed and it does need reform. My personal

view may be that there are all sorts of problems with an elected chamber

which would have to be resolved before it was elected, I do not see

any point in the other place replicating this place. I do not see

it being a place for ambitious 30 and 40-year-olds who want to climb

the greasy pole and become Ministers. There is no harm in

that, no harm in ambition, but there is no point in having another set of

politicians in that place. There are many other arguments which will rage

back and forth but I do not want to get involved in that debate during

this speech. So, I am looking at the House of Lords as it is, as it is

appointed. And I believe that if it is appointed by the Deputy Speaker

-- Madam Deputy Speaker, if it is not elected, again it cannot

replicate this place into a political dispute. It has to be a

place of experts, of distinguished men and women from all walks of life

and from all parts of the country, mature people who do not really want

to get involved in politics any more, they may have been politicians

but they want to use the other place to improve legislation. There is no

doubt about it, the legislation which leaves this place has not been

thought through, is hurried and does need approving, so there is a place

for a revising chamber. And as part of this bill I would like to get an

agreement by convention that the House of Lords is not there to

overturn manifesto commitments, in my view not their turn to get

involved in taxation, because the reason why this House of Commons was

created centuries ago was that the king should not be allowed to tax

the people without the consent of the people, therefore taxation

resides with this House of Commons. So I would like to see it being

re-established as a sensible revising chamber. But I return to my

original point, it is too large, too comfortable, too prone to political

patronage. I have to say straightaway that mine is not a

declaratory bill. I would lay down the guidelines and it is for the

other place within certain guidelines to decide how they meet

those guidelines. But my own view is that the House of Lords is too

large, and it doesn't need to be larger than the size of the House of

Commons. I would use that as a guide. At the moment, 650 members

perhaps after the next election there will be 600, so how do we

reduce a House of Lords of 800 members for 850 down to 600 or 600

or 650? My own view and I would leave this Lords to determine how

they do it, as there has to be some way in which the size of the

political parties in the other place reflect the size of the political

parties in this place after a General Election. But that is for

them to decide, they may have another point of view or may wish to

reflect voting strengths. And then they would have to be left over from

crossbenchers so that no one party would have a majority, I think that

is terribly important. Just because one party gets an overall majority

in this place, I do not believe that one party should have an overall

majority in the other place. So we reduce the size, it is obviously too

overcrowded at the moment, we stop this absurd race every time there is

a General Election, where there is a change of party control and the

incoming Prime Minister feels he has to create another ten, 20, 30, 40

members in the other place to try and increase his strength. So we go

on, getting a larger and larger body. Frankly, when I started in

office, it was pretty hard to get into the House of Lords, basically

you have to be pretty well a former Cabinet Minister. It is becoming too

easy, there are too many people and it gives the Prime Minister too

If we have to reduce the number of bishops, not everybody would agree

with this, so be it. I will not carry on with that. We have other

people of other faiths. It is for them to decide. I do not think there

should be a set retirement age. There are people at the age of 19

that are making a contribution. If they are elected by their fellows to

go on sitting there, let them do it. -- the age of 90. Nobody ever the

age of 80 should draw expenses or allowances and nobody over the age

of 80 should be allowed to vote. This system works well in the

Vatican, where you can ask us with your colleagues, but over the age of

80, E don't vote. -- you don't vote. That is for them, again, to decide.

To force people over the age of 80 to be on the whip, coming in, the

thing late at night, is rather the meaning for them and unnecessary,

and if they are not receiving expenses... IMF rate the House of

Lords -- I am afraid the House of Lords has increasingly in prone to

criticism and scandal, and we have to find a way forward. Members of

the House of Lords should either be on an expense regime, and it should

be subject to IPSA, you should be allowed to claim for a hotel or for

travel, if your main home is outside London, and as an alternative, there

should be a modest flat rate taxable allowance. If we get rid of all of

these scandals that we read about, which is drawing away support from

the other place, people coming in for half an hour to claim their

tax-free allowance, we give them the choice, and I think we should have

the system here, you either go on the IPSA regime with all of its

convocations, or you have a modest taxable allowance. -- all of its

complications. If we recreate the conventions about making it a

revising chamber, if we have a modern expense regime, if we try and

an sure that we have really distinguished people in the other

place who want to go there because they want to make a contribution,

not necessarily speaking a lot every year, but coming in a few times a

year because they have a particular expertise, if that is the sort of

chamber we want, and I believe my Bill fits the Bill. It fits what is

needed. It fits the Bill, although it is a Bill. It would be a modern

revising chamber. We are all modernizers now, are we not? It

would avoid scandals and create a House of Lords of a good size and

make a House of Lords fit for purpose for the 21st century, and I,

and it's to the House. -- and I commend it to the House. As many of

that opinion say I. On the contrary know. The ayes have it, the ayes

have it. You will prepare and bring in the Bill? Geoffrey Clifton

Brown, Philip Davis, Michael fabricant, Robert Neil and myself.

Sir Edward Leigh. House of Lords Parliamentary

standards etc. Bill. Friday the 4th of December. Friday the 4th of

December. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.

Cities and local government devolution Bill lords committee.

Order. Order. Cities and local devolution will lords. -- Bill of

Lords. We again with clause 20, with which it will be convenient to

debate clause 21, at new clause three, and new clause nine. The

question is, that clause 20 stand part of the Bill. Thank you. I look

forward to an interesting discussion this afternoon. I hope we are able

to explore issues that are of concern to members, but hopefully,

in the bulk of those areas, find consensus, areas in which the House

agrees. I wish to oppose clause 20, standing

part of the Bill, and I will speak to clause 21 and new clauses three

and nine. Clause 21 followed a lively debate in the other place. It

amends section two, by lowering the voting age in inland and Wales. This

means that 16-18 -year-olds could vote in all of those elections which

are based on this franchise. This would include in England and Wales

Police and Crime Commissioner elections, elections for the Greater

London Authority of Mayor and collections to the National Assembly

of Wales and also mean that 16-18 -year-olds could vote in local

neighbourhood planning referendums and referendums on local authority

government arrangements. I have considered carefully the arguments

that have been set out in earlier considerations of the Bill, but here