24/05/2016 House of Commons

of the challenges that are related to the freedom of the press with

her. The UK last provided cluster

munitions to Saudi Arabia nearly 30 years ago. The final delivery was in

1989. We ratified the Convention on cluster munitions on the 4th of May

2010 and we no longer supply, maintain nor support this weapon. We

have not done so since we signed the convention in 2008. Based on all of

the information available to us including sensitive coalition

operational reporting we assess that no UK supplied cluster weapons have

been used or UK supplied aircraft have been involved in the use of UK

cluster weapons in the conflict in Yemen. We are aware of reports of

the alleged use of cluster munitions by the coalition in Yemen. We have

raised the issue of their use during the current conflicts in Yemen

several times with the Saudi Arabian authorities and in line with our

obligations under the Convention on cluster munitions, continue to

encourage Saudi Arabia is a nonparty to the convention to exceed to it.

The Saudis have previously denied using UK cluster munitions during

the conflict in Yemen but we are seeking fresh assurances in light of

this serious allegation. Yesterday amnesty International sent a letter

to the Prime Minister calling for an urgent investigation into the

scandal of UK supplied cluster bombs being used in villages in northern

Yemen. During recent research in villages, never Yemen/ Saudi border,

they found UK manufactured cluster bombs. They have been used by the

Saudi Arabian led coalition forces. Whilst I know the Minister's

remarks, the discovery of the cluster bomb manifested in the UK in

the 70s is clear evidence that as long suspected members of the Saudi

Arabian led military commission accused British cluster munitions in

their highly controversial attacks in the Yemen. In February the

European Parliament voted for an EU wide ban on sales of arms to Saudi

Arabia citing the disastrous humanitarian situation as a result

of the Saudi led military intervention in Yemen. In the 2008

code of conduct, they promised not to sell weapons to countries with --

that might be using violations of international humanitarian law and

undermine regional stability and peace. With this in mind for the UK

Government now suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia and properly

investigate the issues raised by Amnesty International? Will the

Secretary of State confirm that the Government will keep its commitment

to the EU not to export in these tragic circumstances? Finally, what

the Secretary of State apologised to the House that this Government's

continued inaction in this vital matter which has resulted in the

deaths of Yemeni men, women and children as a continued use of

British bombs. --? The Government recognises that the seriousness of

this allegation and has therefore requested reconfirmation from the

Saudi authorities of any evidence that there is to suggest you came

munitions have been involved in the way alleged. We don't have any

evidence of this at present and we have not supplied any such munitions

for a very long time. There have been several conflicts in the border

area between Saudi Arabia and northern Yemen in the last decade so

it is not clear to us that this munition has come from the current

conflicts. In relation to other issues the honourable lady

mentioned, we are clear that the role of the United Kingdom advises

to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia's Armed Forces are not operational in

this conflict. We welcome the ceasefire and the negotiations that

are underway and have been in place for the last six weeks or so and we

wish that to be successful so that hostilities continue to result in no

further conflict in Yemen. As the Government's special envoy to Yemen,

I have been there many times and more recently to Saudi Arabia where

the Government of Yemen is based. I have been to the operational

targeting headquarters of the Saudi led coalition and have seen for

myself what I believe to be a very high professional standard being set

by that operation. Notwithstanding the honourable lady's Passion on

this driven much more by NGO briefing vanities by any experience

in this, would it not be... It is not insulting at all to suggest that

experience about the country does matter. Would it not be wise for the

House to appreciate that the current cessation of hostilities and the

peace talks in Kuwait are at an absolutely critical phase and the

future of the country entirely depends on these talks. Therefore it

would be wise also not to inflame any kind of opinion that could

jeopardise these talks and empower those who would rather see them fail

and succeed? I am very grateful to my right honourable friend who does

speak with considerable experience on matters of Yemen as the Prime

Minister's envoy to the country. He visits its neighbours more than any

member of this house. I would remind those opposite who are rightly

concerned about the impact of certain munitions in this conflict

that it wasn't for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia adopting the coalition

following UN resolution 2216, it will be likely that the entire

Yemeni country would be overrun and in a state of continuing chaos. We

have all read the reports of Yemen in recent days of cluster bombs and

such volumes in civilian areas that they are hanging off the trees of

young children picking up the bombs thinking they are toys with familiar

results. They will be rightly concerned about the lack of answers

we have heard from the Minster. We need to know whether this Saudi

military abused British planes to drop cluster bombs. What is the

extent of British involvement in this conflict and what is it

designed to achieve? A State Department official has said that

the United States has reminded Saudi Arabia of its obligations regarding

the use of cluster bombs has an -- and has encouraged them to avoid

civilian casualties. Can the Minister confirm whether the

Government has ways those concerns with his Saudi counterparts and what

response has he received? Even as the evidence mounts we have heard

the absurd spectacle of the Saudi spokesman in the face of all the

evidence insisting that the coalition is not using cluster

bombs. Finally, can the Minister and so this. Does he believe the bloody

doors -- the Brigadier general and what is he going to do about it and

when is he going to do it? As I have said we regard the reports as

Sirius. We are seeking to investigate through our discussions

with the Saudis any evidence to substantiate the evidence made. I

can categorically reassure her in this house that no British planes

had been involved in this coalition effort at all, let alone in dropping

cluster munitions as the potential allegation. There is no British

involvement in the coalition in terms of targeting or in weapon

icing aircraft to undertake missions. In relation to the

Government's response, my honourable friend, the Minister for the Middle

East, was in Doha yesterday and met the United Nations envoy for Yemen

and has pressed upon him the need to continue with these as he was

indicating then the debt -- the delicate integration is going on in

Yemen. As the secretary of a tandem

ministers are aware, the committee on arms export control is holding an

inquiry into the conflict in Yemen. Will he can lead to some knitting

any further evidence, not least in terms of cluster bombs, not least in

terms of from Saudi Arabia to the committee as soon as it becomes

available? I joined other ministers in appearing before the honourable

gentleman's committee recently, which was a novel experience, and I

hope a satisfactory one. I would happily undertake that should we

receive any further evidence as a result of our current enquiries into

use of cluster munitions, that we provide that evidence to the

committee. There is a government has truly got its head stuck in the

sand. Yemen is facing one of the worst humanitarian crisis in the

world, yet through its continuing sales of arms to Saudi Arabia, the

UK Government is exacerbating the plight of the Yemeni people. The

SNP's Queen's Speech called for a regulation of a trading bill, which

would seek to regulate the arms treaty. That is the right and

transparent approach to such deals the UK Government must follow.

Doesn't he agree it is a disgrace that the UK Government has licensed

?6.7 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia since this Prime Minister took

office in 2010? Including 2.8 billion since the bombing of Yemen

began in 2010. Is it worth so much more than the thousands of men and

women who die in this conflict crush mark this government has questions

to answer, with evidence mounting it has reached human law. Will the

inquiry get underway? I will asked a lady do consider her last remarks,

there is no suggestion the UK is involved in breaches of the

humanitarian law in this conflict, non-whatsoever. The human --

humanitarian aid is second ranking from countries around the world, we

have a proud record of supporting the humanitarian cause of people

disturbed by this crisis. As she will be aware, some one fifth of

people in need around the world through conflict are in Yemen, and

we are committed to supporting peaceful resolution of this

conflict. In relation to arms exports to the kingdom of Saudi

Arabia, the exports that have been undertaken in recent years are

primarily in providing capability to cope with incursion by foreign

powers. They are supporting the kingdom of savage Arabia's

contributed the Daesh, where they are playing a vital role. The

honourable lady has to look at the challenges in the round in that

region and the role Saudi Arabia is playing in providing continued

security to the region. I'm sure the Minister would agree that in the

Arabian area, we have to be careful of what we wish for because some

conservative approaches could replace them, and we could see a

collapse in Yemen which could danger our security. Would he agree this

latest incident shows the importance of all nations signing up to the

cluster munitions legislation, in the same way the UK has? I'm

grateful for him to pointing out it is a volatile country which has

played host to terrorist organisations. I agree with them it

is desirable for more countries to sign up to the Convention on cluster

munitions, and we encourage our friends in Saudi Arabia to do so on

several occasions. There's been some doubts cast on the validity of

evidence produced by Amnesty, but I have seen the whole series of

photographs that do suggest cluster munitions are being used in Yemen,

and Amnesty have told us that more information was impossible to attain

because three people were killed in an incident was carrying out their

work, which suggest cluster munitions are being used. Can the

Minister explained, has he seen all of the evidence, and will he commit

to independently review its? Has he had any other answers to the series

of allegations made against cut on attacks against civilians? Not just

from Amnesty, but from Oxfam and other organisations, that the

Minister admitted he had not had satisfactory answers from? I would

say that I'm not casting doubt on the photographic evidence. The

challenge is to determine where and when the munitions were laid and by

whom, and there is little evidence of that at this point. We are happy,

we are taking this up with the Saudi Arabian authorities and are

concerned of the evidence of any UK ammunition that might have been use.

We will come if we find any evidence, pass it on to the

committee. In relation to the questions he posed to me and others

who appear before the committee, as to the extent of investigations on

other matters that we are reviewing or seeking information on, at this

point I'm not aware of any further such information forthcoming since

we last met the committee a couple of weeks ago. Can I find him for

granting the urging questions to the member? This is a very serious

matter, and I'm glad there will be an investigation of the very serious

allegations that have been made by honesty International. We are

involved in Yemen because we are peacemakers. We want to see peace

restored to this country that is bleeding to death because of the

involvement of so many countries. We needed the support of the Saudi

Arabians in order to restore a legitimate and, because of the

actions of the Iranians. It is important they now stop and support

the ceasefire, and these kinds of allegations undermine the work that

is being done by the Coalition. Could he ensure that the salad year

Arabian ambassador is called to see the Foreign Office minister said

that we can reinforce the message -- Saudi Arabian, but these undermined

the peace process? And that is what you need to make sure is maintained.

I'm grateful for the right honourable gentleman he was taking

an interest in this country. I'm grateful for pointing out that the

Coalition effort in Yemen was issued at the invitation of the president,

and therefore it is a fully legitimised operation. He is right

that the primary effort of the UK Government is to ensure peace is

restored to the country, and to that end, my honourable friend meets the

Saudi ambassador routinely, he saw him last week, and presses upon him

the importance of the negotiations that have taken place in Kuwait and

seeks to provide our assistance with those negotiations. In his earlier

reply, the Minister mentioned that he hadn't supplied munitions for

long time. Could you clarify the date of the last time munitions were

supplied? In my response to the original question, I made it clear

that in 1989 was the last time we supplied any of the Kayal 755

munitions. The government are digging a deeper hole for

themselves. I'd exchanged letters with ministers on this subject and

have been informed the government have concluded the Saudi look lead

Coalition are not targeting civilians in Yemen. How can the

government draw this conclusion when they have stated that whole cities,

whether UN Council identified hospitals and mosques have been

identified, and Saudis are using UK made cluster munitions, 93% of

casualties are civilians, according to the UN. Will the government

require a backbone, except Saudi Arabia is in breach of humanitarian

law and halt weapon sales until they clean up their act? What I would say

is that this is a Civil War and in Civil War difficult things happen.

This is a complex environment. Actors use whatever is available to

them in terms of the two rain that is there, in order to adopt

positions, and it is not a nice straightforward, clinical exercise

like might happen in a training event. Therefore, accidents do

happen, and as a result of our relationship with the Saudi Arabian

Armed Forces, we are in a position to exert some influence on the

Coalition and its leadership to investigate accidents when they

occur and allegations of instances such as those that the honourable

gentleman has mentioned. We are putting the pressure on them, they

have said they are undertaken those investigations, and we are waiting

on the outcome. Finds to Labour government, we have the Arms export

control act of 2002, which provides as country with a robust mechanism

for our exports, not just to Saudi Arabia, but to other countries. But

the Minister provide what pressures have been put on the Iranians to

stop them exporting weapons, and in terms of using them for a direct

threat to Saudi Arabia? The honourable gentleman, who is an

experienced man in these matters, will be aware of Coalition efforts

to intercept material seeking to be supplied to rivals by foreign

governments, in particular from Orion -- Iran. My right on friends

raised this specific issue, and we will put diplomatic pressure on the

Iranians to seek their support. -- right honourable friend. Can I thank

the Minister for his response? The issue, along with the defence

committee, I attended and the Arms committee and we had a robust

exchange of views. Evidence was mentioned about the use of footage

of cluster bombs. In your response to the committee and for the

purposes of this House today, you stated that if evidence was found

that showed British cluster bombs were used, that the sanctions would

take place and they would stop arms exports to Saudi Arabia. We now have

more evidence that they produced. Will we take action to ensure that

exports to Saudi Arabia stopped, because the evidence shows British

cluster bombs? The honourable gentleman has taken an interest in

the subject and he plays an important role on the committee. I

will need to repeat what I said to the committee previously, and that

is we will take, we provide advice to the business department who are

the entity within the UK Government that provides exports licensors, and

the device we will give is shaped by the sake at the time. We have an

allegation of the use of a UK munition. Until we have established

whether that's munition has been used by a member of the Coalition,

we're not in a position at this point to speculate on what might

happen the future licence applications. It is important to

have a detailed investigation of exactly what was dropped and went,

because we all know that munitions can come to light many years after

complex, for example we are still finding bombs from World War II in

Britain. Does he agreed that that sort of investigation is important

because it is a close ally, acting in self defence of a government

which is entitled to run that country, and therefore it is not a

straightforward matter of condemnation? I'm grateful for him

pointing it out that munitions have quite a long shelf life, and it is

quite possible that the munitions that have been subject to this

allegation may have been a relic of a previous conflict in that area of

which there had been seven over the past ten years.

Britain was right to join other countries in the world to ban

cluster bombs and it is clear in this matter Saudi Arabia have

questions to answer. The Minister has mentioned the representations

that our Government has made to the Saudi Arabians. Will he explain what

work he is doing alongside other countries cluster bombs. Week

encourage them to concede to the terms of the convention or join

themselves. There are periodic dialogues with those countries that

are not as yet signatures to the convention and we will continue to

support those discussions. In one of his replies, my right honourable

friend mentioned the investigations which the Saudi Government has

agreed to undertake into strikes in civilian areas. Could he give us

some timetable when he expects to hear results from these

investigations by the Saudis. We are looking at the allegations that have

been made through the various bodies that have been mentioned in the

Chamber earlier in relation to this conflict where we have the

opportunity to indicate to the Saudi military that these incidents are

worthy of investigation. This is an ongoing process. We have had

opportunities to encourage them to speed up their investigations but at

this point I can put a timetable on it. It is clear that these munitions

are old munitions but they are falling and affecting families and

people living in Yemen. Would you not agree that this Government has a

responsibility, moral responsibility to act to provide training,

resources to the services on the ground in Yemen who are trying to do

mine these areas so people don't have to live in safety? She referred

to munitions falling. We don't know if the munitions referred to in the

allegations today, when, where or how they were delivered. It is that

information that will help to inform the investigation and what is done

about it. In relation to the clearing up of the munitions that do

exist in northern Yemen we are supporting a number of NGO's with

resource and training to encourage them to undertake this important

work. I am hoping the honourable member for Twickenham was here at

the start of the statement. Good. That is good enough for me. With

reference to a colleague from North East Hertfordshire, can the Minister

tell me when the UK signed the Convention on cluster munitions,

what happened to the existing UK manufactured cluster bombs at that

time? I can help the honourable lady. The last munitions that were

surprised -- surprised -- supply to Saudi Arabia, it did not come into

effect until May 2010 and we seized supply and did not support any

weapons further. May I congratulate the member for bringing the

Government to answer this urgent question. These cluster bombs seemed

to be modelled in the 1970s and it undermines the relationship between

the UK and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Over that time possibly

thousands of UK personnel have found themselves either advising Armed

Forces or leaving the UK service to take up the role of the Saudi

Arabian armed services. How confident is the Minister and the

Government and that no UK citizen has been involved in targeting,

firing or maintaining these illegal weapons while in the service of the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Completely confident. Once again we have

ministers prepared to present the Saudi wolf in a sheepdog's clothing.

We have given -- we have been given a pub crawl of an excuse. We were

told either the weapons were old or there is no evidence of any cluster

munitions haven't been used by Saudi led coalition at all. Then there was

no evidence that they were British manufactured. Then we have been told

that the Minister is concerned and will try to get evidence. Rather

asking them about what they have done, were the Mint contact the

centre that recovered this material and have it in a deep mining depot

and look at the same evidence that Amnesty international have examined?

I would say and remind him that we are not members of this coalition.

We do not have locus within Yemen to undertake direct investigations

ourselves. What we are talking about the alleged violations of

international humanitarian law. The correct procedure is when an

incident has been brought to the attention of members of the

coalition, that the coalition to investigate themselves. We are able

to encourage and stimulate them to undertake that investigation because

we have a long-standing relationship between our respective Armed Forces

and that is what we are doing. That is the right way to proceed. If

these reports are not enough. Under what circumstances would the

Government consider or suspend sales of arms to Saudi Arabia? This is an

allegation. There are a number of allegations of potential breaches of

violations of humanitarian law. If such investigations lead to clear

evidence, that evidence will have to be taken into account whenever an

armed licence is presented and information is relevant. The

shocking statistics make it clear that the deaths of civilians in

Saudi Arabia are not an accident. They have been indiscriminate and

deliberately setting out to kill civilians. Does the Minister not

agree that instead of hiding behind the assertion, that we can prove

British weapons have been used, the only way to make sure they are not

is to call an immediate halt to all arms sales to Saudi Arabia until

allegations have been proven to be unfounded? Such a call will have no

impact on the use of existing weapons that are already supplied.

It wouldn't achieve what the honourable gentleman is looking to

do. The answer is that we are using our influence on the Saudi Arabians

to encourage them to undertake investigations in a circumstance

where there is a conflict and has been conflict on the ground. This

has been a war environment. Difficult things happens in wars and

it is not possible to be certain about everything that takes place in

such an environment. That is why it is important to investigate those

allegations that appeared to be a breach. The Minister said no UK made

planes have dropped UK made cluster bombs. Can he confirm whether any UK

planes have dropped any cluster bombs at all? There are no UK Royal

Air Force planes involved in the coalition and there are no cluster

munitions within the arsenal of the British Armed Forces. Given the

grave concerns raised, with the UK Government heed the recommendation

of the International development committee and back the establishment

of an independent investigation into alleged breaches of humanitarian law

in Yemen? There is a clear process under which the Saudis-macro

undertake the operation. They haven't done that before in previous

conflicts in which the Saudis-macro been engaged and that is the

approach. Statement, the Secretary of State

for Defence. Secretary Michael Fallon. With permission I want to

update the House on the counter Daesh campaign during the February

statement is where my right honourable friend's the foreign and

develop an secretary. The attacks in Brussels have reminded us of the

port and self-defeating this terror and since the decisive vote to

extend their strikes to Syria, we have stepped up our air campaign and

today I want to set out the United Kingdom's contribution to military

operations and our wider efforts to defeat Daesh. We now have 11 hundred

military personnel in the region on this campaign. -- 1000 100. I know

the House will want to join me in paying tribute to them and their

families who are not with us. The RAF have conducted over 760 air

strikes on Iraq and since December 43 strikes in Syria, more than any

other nation except the US. As well as providing close air support, we

have been targeting Daesh communications and infrastructure

and providing intelligence and surveillance. In Iraq we have over

250 troops who have trained more than 30,000 members of the Iraqi

security forces, mainly in countering explosive devices. The

extra troops have now started to deploy. 22 engineering Regiment is

providing bridge building training was the MoD hospital unit from

Northallerton is providing medical expertise. The military campaign is

making progress. In Iraq, Daesh is on the back foot and has lost

territory. Its finances have been targeted and its leadership has been

struck. 40% of the territory Daesh once held has been retaken including

re Mardi, last month and another area. Operations for the settlement

of Mo is all are underway and at the weekend the Prime Minister admitted

-- announce the beginning of the operation to take Fallujah. In Syria

this Syrian war and the persistence of Russia's intervention provides a

more complex situation despite the cessation of hostilities. The resume

has continued to hammer them moderate opposition. In Aleppo,

hospitals and schools have been repeatedly shelled. On the 4th of

May, the UK called an urgent session of the new -- Security Council to

highlight the atrocities. Russia, the Assad regime's protector, must

apply pressure to end this finance. Nonetheless, even in Syria Daesh has

lost ground and has been driven away from a major supply route. Coalition

air strikes have destroyed an estimated $800 million worth of

Daesh cash stockpiles whilst the at RAF has/ F feels in eastern Syria.

We need to build on this progress and earlier this month I and other

coalition defence ministers refute what cert -- what further support we

can offer and we are looking at what more the UK can do. Daesh cannot be

defeated by military means alone. That brings me to the wider

strategy. First on counter ideology, the UK has led the creation of a

coalition communications sell to undermine Daesh failing proposition

that they are winning militarily, that they are building a viable

state and they represent the only true form of Islam. Some in the

media have criticised our proactive efforts to discredit Daesh perverted

ideology. I say to the House that we make no apology is seeking to stop

people being radicalised and stop them becoming Daesh suicide bombers

or foot soldiers. We are supporting political reform and reconciliation

in Iraq and the ending of the Civil War in Syria and the transition of

Assad from power. We are helping to stabilise area is liberated from

Daesh so people can return to a safe environments. We have contributed to

UN led efforts to remove ie deep's and increased water availability, to

rebuild schools, police stations and electricity generators across

provinces. In Syria, long term success means a political settlement

which delivers a Government that can represent all Syrians that we can

work with to tackle Daesh. Last week the International Syria support

group reaffirmed its determination to strengthen the cessation of

hostilities and set a deadline 1st of June for four humanitarian access

to besieged areas. Despite this agreement, attacks have

continued, and armed groups or withdrawing from this. We support

the envoy in their efforts to resume peace, the success of which depends

on the respect for humanitarian access and the discussion of

transactions. The UK is playing a full role in addressing the crisis

in Syria. At the London conference we doubled our government to Syria

to 2.3 billion, which has delivered over 20 million food rations for

over 4.5 million people. There remain 13.5 million people in need

inside Syria. The regime continues to remove vital medical supplies

from eight convoys, in violation of international law. It is outrageous

that aid itself has become a weapon that aid itself has become a weapon

of war. We are stemming the flow of foreign fighters through better

international coordination, at least 50 countries now pass fighter

profiles to Interpol, 400% increase over two years. We estimate the

number of fighters joining Daesh has fallen to around 200 a month from

its peak of around 2000 a month. Finally, as Daesh has squeeze into

Iraq and Syria, we've seen new branches appear, most concerning the

in Libya. We visited Tripoli last month. I spoke to the new Libyan

defence minister to repeat our offer of assistance to the new government.

Last Monday the international unity reaffirmed its support for that

government and it underlined the need for a coordination between

legitimate Libyan security forces to fight Daesh and UN designated

terrorist groups. Britain would only provide training or other support at

the invitation of the Libyan governments or by other authority,

and let me reiterate to the House, there are no plans to deploy troops

in a combat role. Mr Speaker, since this House supported extending

military operations, we have intensified our efforts to defeat

Watt. There is a long way to go, and political processes, progress needs

to match military progress on the ground. But we can be encouraged.

This may be a long campaign, but it is one we have to win, and it is one

we will win. I commend this station to the House. May I start by joining

the secretary of stayed in recognising the bravery of our Armed

Forces? -- secretary of. Daesh and those who fight alongside them must

be stopped. I was surprised there wasn't recognition from the

Secretary of State about the terrible news of the suicide

bombings in Syria, that caused so many fatalities, which serves as a

reminder that progress, be measured only in terms of the size of Daesh

held society. On the heart of the House, may I express all of our

condolences to the victims and their families? A particular development

was seen at the weekend, which was the launch of the ground offensive

against the Daesh stronghold. It is forgotten that around 350 British

troops have also been deployed on the ground in Iraq providing vital

training and advice to the Iraqi security forces, who have a sub port

and -- who have an important stake here, and we will monitor their

progress. Syria is a situation which is more complex. Last year, the

Secretary of State said we would tighten the noose around the snake

which is rattling. By taking the fight to the capital, this will

present a challenge as compared to the previous stages of the campaign.

In terms of ground forces, Coalition air strikes to date have been,

mentored by a number of armed opposition groups on the ground,

particularly in northern Syria. But the white PG is unlikely to have a

role, given its resistance to the Kurdish regions. There are questions

about the numbers and composition of other armed opposition groups. The

House was told that the Free Syrian Army prized a majority of 70,000

moderate fighters, which would fight in Syria. As the Secretary of State

has said himself, air strikes have targeted the Free Syrian Army, among

other rebel groups opposed to the Assad regime, but not thought to be

affiliated to Daesh. There have been reports in the last 24 hours which

indicate the Free Syrian Army may be excluded from the US-led plan to

liberate the area. Is this right creche mop if it is, how is the

government expected to contribute in to the next stage creche mob will

they increase efforts to coordinate the allies? Can the Secretary of

State is reassure the House further strikes will restrict casualties, it

is an area is to be targeted? The statement we have had on the latter

point so far have not provided assurances. We are told the review

is carried out after each strike to assess the damage, but there are few

details of the process. The MoD considers all reports of civilian

casualties, but it is not clear how credibility is defined. Neither is

it clear how many reports of casualties the government has

received, but that found to be credible, nor even how the very

difficult distinguish is made in the first place. I welcome the progress

made in this fight against Daesh in recent weeks, and I hope to hear in

more detail what strategy the government has taken this campaign

forward. I'm grateful to the honourable lady

for the tone in which she has approached this. She raised three

for specific points. So far as suicide bombings are concerned,

she's right to draw the attention to them for sub in Iraq the indicate a

switch of tactics by Daesh, because they are being pushed west. We are

seeing these suicide explosions in Baghdad, but also in Syria as well.

She's also to draw attention to the operations that are likely to be

needed to liberate both areas, which are of course the main centres

occupied by Daesh at the moment, and are going to require quite sustained

and formidable operations by the local forces on the ground. Nobody

should underestimate the difficulty involved in that, or the timescales

that are involved. Some progress is being made in north-east, northern

Syria, and there are operations on going to try and sealed the

remaining pockets on the border that are not sealed, and to slowly begin

to tighten the noose around is the area. Operations have begun to begin

to plan how the city may be recovered, and troops have been

moved forward to be ready for that. So far as the numbers involved in

Syria, she asked me about the estimate of 70,000. Our view is that

the estimate has stood up, they are still numbers of that size involved

in fighting the regime. The Syrian Democratic forces are part of that

struggle. Finally she asked me about civilian casualties. I should make

clear to the House we carry out a battle damage assessment after every

RAF strike, we look back again at the evidence as to what the strike

actually achieved. To satisfy ourselves that there were no

civilian casualties involved, and we will of course look especially at

any particular allegation that is made, any piece of evidence that

comes to light that there may have been civilian casualties. However,

at the moment, after one year and a half of operations in Iraq and

Syria, our view remains that we have seen no evidence as yet of civilian

casualties being caused by other strikes, and that, I would suggest,

is treated to the professionalism of the RAF pilots and crews involved as

well as the choice of munitions. Russian media are reporting forces

are preparing for an assault on a leper, and there is scope for

confusion and miss information on identifying opposition forces. Has

there been any work done by creating a joint intelligence picture between

the countries who are members of the International Syria support group,

so that the capacity to miss information in this area can be

addressed? My honourable friend, the Minister of state for the middle

east, is already involved in that work as to how we can build of a

better picture, and my right honourable friend is right, the

picture around Aleppo is the most complex of all, with the different

groups fighting it, but he makes an important point of sharing

intelligence more wildly. May I thank the Secretary of State for the

prior statement? In the debate we had in December in this House, we

were told the UK's contribution to help defeat Daesh was a brimstone

missile, and that partners were pressurising the UK to bring it to

the conflict. This unique contribution argument continued,

even after it was shown the Saudi Arabian air force had been using

brimstone since February of 2015. Despite that, it remain the central

plank of the case for extending UK military action into Syria. Indeed,

as early, as late as publisher, a Freedom of Information Act ash macro

as late The capacity to minimise civilian categories work best when

there is human intelligence on the ground to supply precise

information, this explains the other great plank of the government's

case, the 70,000 moderate ground troops who were a steward to be

ready to cut off the head of the Daesh's head. We were told the

Coalition are dropping air leaflets, urging the civilian population to

flee the city ahead of an imminent attack. The problem is that the

civilian publishing of that city are being used as human shields by Daesh

and they have threatened to murder on anyone attempting to leave the

city. Could the Secretary of State tell me what discussions has he had

with our Coalition partners to decide if the RAF will take part in

this imminent bombing of the city, with its large civilian population?

I'm grateful to the honourable member for his questions, these are

largely operational matters, but I'll do my best to respond. The RAF

use a number of precision weapons, the brimstone missiles, for example,

the different tasks. The brimstone is suited to striking moving

vehicles, for example. The others deal with more static targets like

command posts. It so happens I can tell the House that yesterday the

RAF attacks use all types of munitions, and there will be more

details of that in due course. So far as the city is concerned, we

never said the RAF would start bombing indiscriminately. The

Coalition will be careful in its use of close air support, as the

operations begin to first end circle and then eventually to liberate the

suburbs and the city centre involved. Obviously we want to

ensure that as many civilian lives are saved as possible, and as in the

liberation of other cities, of course the Coalition has been

encouraging citizens to leave, to make sure that those lies spread.

These are things we discussed regularly inside the Coalition. I'm

keen to accommodate all of them on this important statements. The

timing of which was flagged up last week by the government, but there

are also about 30 people seeking to contribute to the subsequent

debates. Dizziness personified as what we require.

Pithiness. Those who say we need to work with a sad missing the point.

They need look no further than when a convoy was prevented of getting to

the town to help starving children. And the brutality of this regime

means we have no chance of working with him successfully in the future.

I agree and do and the brutality of the Assad regime can play no part.

They have been using barrel bombs, chlorine, dropping munitions

indiscriminately and they have been robbing humanitarian aid convoys of

exactly the medicines that the local community needs. What progress has

been made in the cutting off of finances to Daesh apart from the

sale of oil like lucrative antiquities and the terrible sale of

slaves? We have looked at the illegally traded whaler crosses

borders and internally in Syria. We have made progress in cutting down

the sale of antiques and artefacts in the international markets and we

have had been looking into the cash stockpiles that they have been used

-- using to finance themselves. One illustration of the progress has

been the reports now that Daesh has begun to cut the pay to its own

troops. Daesh remains the best funded terrorist group in history

despite the fall in the oil price. How confident is the Secretary of

State that Daesh can no longer access the financial infrastructure

and resources of the Iraqi state given that the Foreign Affairs

Committee still waiting for answers from the Iraqi banking authorities

as to Daesh ability to make a turn on the state's currency market.

Daesh when it originally established its caliphate so rapidly, was able

to access finance in the Central Bank in areas in Iraq. It does levy

taxes on the towns and cities it controls. I want to assure my

honourable friend that this work is in hand and we are making progress

in restricting its financial support. Isn't it now clear that the

success of the coalition against Isis will be limited so civilians in

Syria continue to be subject to starvation tactics, beseech mint and

attacks within unity. Isn't it time for a rethink in the UK strategy to

focus much more on civilian production and to that end has

operational planning begun by the MoD on supporting them in their

deadline of the 1st of June on air drops to besieged communities? The

difficulty with airdrops is they are difficult to target on the precise

population. It is difficult to drop water in large quantities and the

United Nations wants to get food in through humanitarian convoys. We

will keep that under review. Last year when I was in Iraq, I was

honoured to meet some displaced people in a number of camps and the

Secretary of State is right to say that in addition to military action,

we need to win the peace. When we levitate -- liberates it is like

Fallujah, can I have assurances that a key part of this tragedy is making

sure that utilities and water and other things to support Civic

Society is something that will be very much part of our plan? Per my

-- the Chancellor announced at the G7 last year that we are

contributing 300 million in loan guarantees to the World Bank 's to

help rebuild an strengthen the economy of Iraq. We are contributing

to the Iraqi humanitarian fund that will help tackle poverty and help

ensure stability. Getting back the essential services on which people

did depend to determine rapidly to the areas that have been liberated.

The Secretary of State has talked about the... I wonder if he could

explain those not familiar with the promotes S the issue where some

targets of void at the last minute because of the awareness of a

civilian casualty? When selecting and approving targets for deliberate

strikes, we take great care to make sure they respect the rules of

engagement that I have set on the beginning of the campaign. It may be

studied for several days or even weeks to make sure that we

understand the pattern of life that it is building and civilians that

are seeing this. Right up until the last moment if civilians are

discovered to be in the area, this strike can be aborted right at the

end. We take care to minimise civilian casualties. It is not

impossible that there may be civilian casualties at some point.

All I can tell you is the evidence so far, we think we have avoided

them. Can I thank the Secretary of State for this update and can I ask

what progress has been made in supplying the arms and ammunition to

the brave Kurdish Peshmerga forces that they have been requesting so

they can continue to take the fight to Daesh on the ground? Yes, we are

planning to provide the Kurdish regional Government with over ?1

million worth of further ammunition to equip the Peshmerga. We have

supplied ammunition and arms to start with and we have done a lot of

training. We have trained 3000 of the Peshmerga to fight but we have

this further shipment in hand at the moment and subject to the approval

of parliament and there is a special procedure by which Parliament has

two signifies approval subject to the prudent apartment. I hope that

ammunition will be with the Kurdish Peshmerga in the next few weeks.

What assessment has the Secretary of State made in relation to the number

of Daesh operating in Europe as opposed to Syria and how effective

has worked been preventing conscription to Daesh both here and

abroad? It is a very good question because we may well see as the Daesh

is squeezed in Syria and Iraq, we may see some backlash from Daesh in

its external attack planning against Western European or British targets.

We are vigilant and working with our partners cross Europe to make sure

that we understand how that attack planning has been carried out and

that we can track down those who are likely to be responsible for the

future attacks. I think the Secretary of State for the update. I

understand there are reports that the Russians have asked the

Americans to join them in joint strikes. Have they made such a

request for the United Kingdom and if so does the Secretary of State

share many concerns that such a move would undermine the political

process because many see the Russians as the aggressors? The gift

to push the political process on and to use its influence with the Assad

regime much more constructively than it has done so far we are covered

and our own strike airport -- aircraft are covered by the

memorandum between the US and Russia and so far is the conflict in the

aerospace. We are not otherwise core operating. First of all I welcome

this quarterly report and we need to be in a cycle of delivering these

reports with a focus on Daesh. I would like to thank the Secretary of

State and the MoD for the helpful briefing that was given yesterday in

relation to Daesh. I asked two questioned yesterday. One was about

no-fly zones and the secretary is clear that there is no scope for fly

zones at the moment. I hope you will keep that under review so if Assad

on the Russians agreed to it, that we can implement it rapidly. The

second question which wasn't answered was in relation to Raqqa

and Mozilla. If they are turned into Stalingrad, wasp or can we give to

civilians within those cities? We are added into the quarterly rhythm.

First statement was December and the next one is February. It is useful

to be updated on that kind of timescale. No-fly zones, it is the

practical application of the no-fly zone that I need persuading about

and not clear at the moment how a no-fly zone could be properly

policed. The worst thing would be to offer a no-fly zone that is not

actually safe. On his final point on Raqqa, these are large cities but at

the moment large civilian populations need operations that

will take a long time. They will take a long time to persuade those

billions that Daesh is not their future and they would be best placed

to leave while the fighting is going on. I pay tribute to the men and

women of our armed services who are working day in, day out to liberate

people from Daesh. When he confirmed to me what preparations are being

made for post-conflict reconstruction one areas are

liberated from Daesh and what part the UK's playing in that? I am

grateful for what he said and I will ensure that is passed back to all

those involved in this huge effort, our biggest single military

undertaking the moment. Civilisation is the key to this. After liberating

a town or city it is essential to offer the local population security

and stability they need be able to return. We are cooperating with our

partners and there is a huge amount of work going on, on a stabilisation

effort. It will be offered to each city and town in turn as it is

liberated. Thank you for taking me so early so I can get out of the

Chamber and is there everybody my germs. Thank you for his statement.

Given the large areas of north-eastern Syria that cannot be

secured, can the Minister outline what practical supply -- but were

given to the Syrian Kurds what effort is being made to include in

diplomatic negotiations? It is problematic for a key actor to be

included for peace talks given their strategic importance in any future

peace settlement. The Kurds are represented in the Syrian talks and

is not the object of these talks and we shouldn't do skewed every Kurdish

group. The Syrian Kurds have to be part of the solution. Many of them

have come forward in the fight against Daesh as well as the fight

against the regime and they have to be part of the future. I would also

like to thank my right honourable friend for his update today and to

add my thanks to the British military personnel who was serving

in the region on our behalf. I would like to ask what assurance he can

give us here in the House today that as the military campaign progresses,

that we are doing all we can to ensure the political track also

moves forward? We have these talks underway for the future of Syria and

they need to make more progress. She is right. In Iraq we have not seen

the political progress we need to match the military progress which is

getting ahead of the reforms and securitisation and stabilisation

that we need to see following on, particularly in Anbar Province. We

owed the Government to crack on with the reforms that are needed to

create a national Guard in which people can have confidence, to give

the governors the powers they need to get essential services up and

running and to ensure that the areas that are liberated them properly

policed. The Secretary of State's statement doesn't refer at all to

either the Syrian Kurds or to the Iraqi Kurds. In answer to a question

earlier he said that there would be at some point in the future the long

delayed supply of relation to the Peshmerga. Can he tell us why it is

taking so long? The Peshmerga are able to access ammunition for a

number of serve -- sources. They have the funding to purchase it and

some more funding has gone in from the US recently. We are not able to

supply the Kurdish Peshmerga direct. It is part of the unitary state of

Iraq and therefore supplies have to be rooted through Iraq and we also

have to consider the needs of the Iraqi forces, the Iraqi army itself.

I have agreed this new shipment of ammunition and I hope it will be

going out there surely. I thank the Secretary of State for

the update. What is clear is that when areas are liberated, venues be

a system of law and order to be put in place. Would he agree that whilst

there may be some need for transitional arrangements, in the

long-term sad cannot be the solution in Syria? -- Assad. There is no

future for a sad in Syria. He needs to depart. We want to see what we

have in Iraq, the government that is representative of all groups in

Syria, who are prepared to work towards a democratic and

representative administration. The Secretary of State said it is

outrageous that aid has become a weapon of war, and those outrages

have consequences for civilians and four children that are grievous, and

with that in mind, can I ask what preparation is going on woman the UK

Government to make sure such crimes are investigated, and at some point

in the future, someone is held accountable? I can give heard that

reassurance, that'll be an important part of the work that will be needed

when the conflict finally ends. We are already now working with people

to collect, to see what they need, the funding and resources they need,

to collect the evidence that will be required to nail those responsible.

It is often said that any lasting peaceful solution in Syria will only

take place in partnership with Russia, that's been a view that is

being expressed here. Two questions. When did they last meet with the

Foreign Secretary and respective Russian government, and will the

Secretary of State make a commitment that the peaceful solution delivered

in a three-year target date for having? On the first, Russia has

legitimate interests and inference in Syria, and we want to bring that

to bear constructively. So far as the Foreign Secretary is concerned,

he needs his counterpart, he met him last week. On the third and final

question, I said an original timescale, it wasn't mine, it was

secretary Ceri's timescale, when we asked the House to motionless. He

said it would take three years. We're not into the second year, it

is going to be a long campaign. Turkey is a key Nato ally and a

partner with others in the fight against Daesh. It has taken in and

provided a safe haven to millions of people fleeing from the terror in

Syria and Iraq. Can I ask the Secretary of State, what support is

the UK Government offering Turkey in its internal fight against Daesh and

the terrorist attacks it has experience, and also the other

groups that have been identified that are operating there? I visited

Ankara for discussions just after one of the first attacks the in

Turkey. We have offered Turkey systems on the counter terrorism,

and we should applaud the role Turkey is playing in looking after

so many refugees, over 2 million refugees, the efforts they are

making to close the border and to stem the flow of foreign fighters,

and to restrict Daesh's ability to trade in arm. Turkey deserves

enormous credit for that. So far as the latter part of her question, I

hope she will allow me to answer that. In the Secretary of State's

statement, he refers to the number of fighters reducing down to 200. I

wondered if he could say, has he made any assessment of the numbers

of UK citizens who have been travelling out to support Daesh,

both male and female, and how many have been returning to the UK? I

will try get that more specific information to her, which I don't

have at hand. The estimate of 200 is 200 foreign fighters joining a

month, the figure of 2000 joining a month when they were at its peak a

couple of years ago. They have more than 200, but the flow of new

foreign fighters has reduced considerably.

At the time of the Syria debate in October, there was goddess gestures

that Russia would work toward a stable transition in Syria within a

six-month period. Clearly it hasn't happened. Can the Secretary of State

say if there's any hope of Russia playing a constructive role or not?

We hope for that, and it is a pressing it hasn't happened. Russia

has huge inference, it could have been playing a more constructive

role, but we've seen what happened after the so-called hostilities

agreed in February. We still see Russia playing a malevolent role,

claiming to withdraw some of its forces but supplying new helicopters

and not directing its fire against the Daesh. He asked what hope, we

should always be hopeful, we will continue to engage forever assured

and urge them to bring it inference that there -- it's

influence to bear. It is extremely difficult to establish any kind of

safe corridor in Syria, vertically northern Syria, where such groups

are under most threats. If I may, I will look at that specifically

later. This point about civilian deaths is really important because

the assurance we were given last year when asked to stand the is

estimated time for air strikes with a central point in persuading me to

support the government proposal, so whilst I welcome what he said today,

what additional reassurance can he provide about the steps the REF is

taken to protect civilians in Syria and ensure they are not the victims

of the REF work? -- REF. We have rules of engagement, as well as in

Iraq, those are different the rules and each country. Any deliberate

targets have to the approved, and that will include the choice of

munition involved and an absolute assurance that on civilians using or

near likely to use that particular building or area that is likely to

be bombed. That is checked. Over a period of days, perhaps weeks, while

the target is watched. And our commanders in the operations centre

in the Gulf, as well as the pilots themselves, can up until the last

moment pull-back from the strike itself if they have any concern at

all there may be civilians in the area. Now, obviously in some of the

areas where there is very intense fighting, whether it's close air

support, it is going to be more and more difficult to ensure that we

avoid civilian casualties, but all I can say is that our policy is to

absolutely avoid the risk of civilian casualties, and so far we

believe the art AF had been successful in doing that -- REF. If

the government predictions have proven correct, Syria would have a

transitional government next week. What is the Minister's most up to

date predictions on these two milestones? To be honest, I would

not have predicted the progress that has been made in Iraq over the last

few weeks and months, which has been more rapid than I would have

believed, had the honourable member asked me that during the debate in

September. In Syria, it has been faster than we would have wanted,

far slower than I thought would be the case when it was agreed in

Munich in February. But this is war, there are a lot of people involved,

who have an interest in sustaining this war, especially the Assad

regime, and we have to keep working at it. You will be aware of Daesh's

attacks on Aleppo, very brutal and violent. Many thousands of people

died and were injured, so there were 225,000 Christians who live there,

they used to be 80,000 Armenian Christians, now only 10,000. What

stats for the government take to ensure any support or opposition

groups does not indirectly benefit extremist targeting minorities such

as to questions in Aleppo? What is happening in Aleppo is nothing short

of a tragedy. It is a beautiful city, a tolerance city which

contains... I visited myself, it contains all kinds of groups, from

different faves living and working happily alongside each other. But it

is important that those groups too, all of them, are represented in the

drive for a political settlement, and that is our aim. I join the

condemnation of the attacks and raids on aid convoys. What support

can the UK pervades to such convoys? -- provides. That is very difficult

in Syria with multiple strikes being carried out by the regime against

its opponents. As well as our need to continue to keep the pressure up

on the infrastructure that supports the Daesh. These attacks could stop,

it's within the gift of the regime to stop them, and it within the gift

of the Russians to bring their influence to bear, and I hope they

will do. The Defence Secretary topped about people returning to a

safe environments, something we would all support. What more is

being done by the International committee to secure the freedom of

the Yazidi women who were captured and put into slavery? We have had

some success in pop relations were telling, particularly in to Crete

where the bus majority of the population has returned. -- basta

majority -- vast majority. There are different circumstances in each of

these areas. So far as the Yazidi women are concerned, we're working

with the engineers to see what we can do to identify where they are

being held and what more could be done to help them too to return.

Just returning to the statement where the Secretary of State says a

foreign fighters reduced to 200 a month. That is welcome. We can build

upon that to drive back down to zero and isolated. Yes, I hope so and we

are working closely with our partners, there are over 40

countries reporting in on foreign fighters through Interpol and the

other international organisations, said that we share information about

these fighters as they travelled towards Iraq or Syria, and of course

we have to play our part in ensuring more people aren't being radicalised

here and keep tabs on those who are likely to go out there. Would the

Secretary of State to give insurance cut assurance to the House that the

Daesh will not take part in air strikes against Temple macro in

Libya without a further vote in this House -- Daesh. We're not planning

any combat role for our troops or the RAF in Libya, that is not part

of our planning. If we considered further military action against the

Daesh, where ever it was, we would of course come to this House to

discuss it first. The recent report by young Syrians argues that many

acts as a key recruiter for Daesh, claiming that while the Syrian army

pays for example $100 a month, Daesh could pay three times that. What

alternative economic options for young Syrians are there to undermine

Daesh's recruitment? The first thing is to undermine Daesh's own access

to revenue and finance, and there is some evidence we are beginning to do

that, to reduce it to the earnings it gets from oil and other trades,

and some evidence, anecdotal perhaps, a body of evidence that it

pay rates to fighters are actually being reduced. Beyond that, we got

to get the Syrian economy going, and the sooner we get a critical

settlement, we can get the money in, which a lot of other countries

pledged jeering the London conference, money ready and waiting

to go in to build the Syrian economy and to do the most important thing

of all, which is to give the young people of Syria a reason to stay in

Syria and to build a new society there that are safe and secure for

their future. The clerk will read the orders of

the day. The Queen's Speech, adjourned debate for question. The

question is that a humble address be presented to Her Majesty as on the

order paper. Mr Hammond. I am delighted to open this debate and

want to congratulate the opposition on selecting it. The security of

Britain and the British people, our relations with Europe and the

promotion of Britain's values including human rights around the

world at the heart of our foreign policy. When you're into this

parliament, the challenges we face to our security, prosperity and

values have not diminished. If anything, they are growing. The

threat posed by Daesh and its affiliates continues and is now

manifested itself in attacks in European cities. The wider in the

Middle East persists. The Israel Palestine question is no nearer a

solution. North Korea has demonstrated his determination to

flout international law by developing nuclear weapons and

ballistic missile is to deliver them. And Russia the same by its

kind to nude destabilisation of Ukraine and its illegal occupation

of Crimea. -- the same by its destabilisation. The eastern

Mediterranean is presenting new challenges to our new neighbours in

Europe. And as we approach the referendum in just over four weeks'

time, even the theoretical possibility that Britain might vote

to leave the European Union is having a chilling effect on economic

growth and business, and consumer confidence. Whatever we look, our

world is becoming more dangerous and more uncertain. Madam Deputy

Speaker, against this hazardous global backdrop, some have argued

for retrenchment and withdrawal from a global role as the safest option.

We cannot turn our backs. As a trading nation, with one of the

largest and most that Mac... Our security depends on global stability

and order. With 5 million British National is living overseas and

million more travelling every year, and with our trade dependent on the

sea lanes and airways that our arteries of commerce, international

engagement and influence are fundamental to maintaining Britain's

security and prosperity. I give way. My rate of honourable friend paints

a picture of us wanting to retrench for those who wish to leave the

European Union. This could not be further for the truth and I suggest

that Project Fear is going down a negative path. In leaving, we would

have greater freedoms to trade and foreign deals with the rest of the

world. We are barred from doing that at the moment, as a member of the

EU, we cannot form individual trading agreements. Project

Paranoia, I was not referring to the exit campaign. I was just observing

there have been that those who have suggested pretensions. Since my

honourable friend has taken me in that direction, let me answer his

question. We enjoy free trade with 53 nations high virtue of free trade

agreements negotiated by the European Union. Those campaigning

for an exit, if we were to leave the European Union, they tell me, we

would rapidly to go seek new trade agreements with the European Union

itself and the 53 countries that that union has free-trade agreements

with. Our experience in the free world is that these agreements take

lots of time. The EU Canada agreement has been seven years in

the negotiating and it is still not ratified. Another small problem that

my honourable friend should think about, we do not actually have any

trade negotiators. The BBC team to negotiate these 53 plus one

agreements from scratch. -- the BBC can do. The European Union has

negotiated Oliver trade agreement on our behalf and we do not have civil

servants -- experienced in this field. Has he made any assessment of

how many additional members of staff either his department or the

business department would have to have in order to deal with this

problem and how many years it would take to train them? The latter point

is more important than the first if I may say so. It is not just a

question of people that out, call up the job centre and say, could you

send us some experienced trade negotiators? We would literally be

starting from scratch. When I look across the Atlantic at the world's

largest economy and the trade negotiation team they have under

Peter Froman, an extremely good team, it is a very small team. They

have struggled to carry out two trade negotiations in parallel. The

idea that any matter of months or years we would've negotiated a

massive deal with the European union and 53 separate trade agreements

with other countries around the world, before starting on the

expansion programme that my honourable friend refers to, is, to

quote the Prime Minister, the birds. Isn't it actually worse than he is

setting out because many of those countries have signed trade deals

with the European Union in order to get access to the single market and

was he as dismayed as I was to hear major opponents of Boat Leads call

for us not to be joining single market if we leave? I was astonished

to hear leading exit campaign suggesting that we do not want to be

part of the single market. Until relatively recently, the position

was that we could have it all. We could be outside but somehow we can

get free and privileged access to the single market, something that

was never likely to be possible but was at least an omission. Now we are

told we do not want to be part of the single market. -- and ambition.

That is a manifesto for the impoverishment of the British

people. From the Treasury model, we would be looking at ?3500 per annum

per household by the end of the next decade, production and our standard

of living. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, sometimes we have to

deal with recessions and economic pressure that comes from us from

outside. -- a reduction. We do not have to deal with a DIY recession

that is entirely self-inflicted and we should avoid it at all costs. I

would like to make some progress of the Honourable Member would allow

me. In the security and defence review and the spending review

published at the end of last year, we took decisions to invest in our

security and safeguard our prosperity, to maintain our

world-class Armed forces, to grow our unique security and intelligence

agencies and through the investigatory Powers Bill to give

them the powers they need to track down terrorists and others who seek

to do us harm and to protect our global Hippocratic network by

maintaining the FCO's budget in real terms. This is underpinned to make

the need to target of 2% of GDP as defence spending and 0.7% a target

of GNI on overseas aid, making Britain the only major country in

the world that meets both of these commitments. I give way to my

honourable friend. He mentioned diplomatic... Would you remind the

House how many new diplomatic posts have been opened under this

Government and its coalition predecessor when we previously did

not have diplomatic representation? My honourable friend is testimony on

the exact number. I think it is one dozen new posts or more that had

been opened but I will write to him with the exact figure. The important

point is that we have opened new posts in secondary cities in China.

When we talk about a secondary city in China, it is one of the

population between 5-10,000,000. And in India as well as reopening posts

in Latin America that we had withdrawn from. He mentioned a

commitment to the 2% of GDP on defence spending, can he not

confirmed that had we not transparent ?820 million from the

pensions budget and other funds from other departments, Britain would

have fallen below the 2% and by this sleight of hand, yes, we have

committed to need 2% but have not added a single penny to the defence

budget when we face a very dangerous world indeed. My right honourable

friend where both defence ministers in a past life and there is no

sleight of hand. The 2% target which is a Nato target is based on Nato

definitions and Britain will stem the 2% of its GDP on defence

spending -- will spend. That is according to Nato definitions.

Talking to people in the defence community, the important thing for

them is not the amount of money that is being spent today, it is the

long-term commitment to maintaining defence spending of 2% of our GDP so

that our spending on our defence will rise in line with our

prosperity as a nation and that is the right thing for us to do. I will

be tempted by my honourable friend and will take one more intervention.

My right honourable friend is right, no Nato rules have been broken and

we can argue about whether there was any new money or whether it was

money we could have counted in the past but didn't. The important point

is that 2% is not a target for us, it is a minimum. The last time we

faced threats of the sort that we are facing now was in the 1980s. In

those days we spent between 4-5% of the GDP on defence. We're not

talking here about bringing the church bells over 2%, we need to

raise our sights to a higher figure altogether. My friend is right. This

is a minimum commitment. They reassured and it gives to our armed

forces and our military about that level of spend and the fact it is

linked to our rising GDP is very important. There is another point

that is equally as important. It is not just the amount of money that is

spent, although that is important, it is how we spend it in order to

ensure the maximum defence effect. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will come to

the honourable lady in a moment. The first duty of any British Government

is to keep our homeland and people safe and secure. Today, threats to

that security take to my principal forms. The immediate risk of

terrorism associated with violent extremist Islamist and Daesh in

particular. And the longer term threat from the breakdown of rules

in the international system which has underpinned our safety and

prosperity since the end of the Cold War. We are engaged in what the

Prime Minister has described as a generational struggle against

Islamist extremism. It is a struggle against not a particular country or

a particular organisation, but against a poisonous ideology that

looks to conduct one of the world's great religions. The terrorist

attacks in the last year in Paris, Brussels, in the skies over Egypt

and the beaches of Tunisia, in Baghdad, Lebanon and Pakistan. Many

other places, it has demonstrated the threat of Islamist extremism is

global. It is a threat that seeks to undermine our values, our democracy

and freedom. It is targeting British citizens and those of our allies. In

spite of the tragic loss of life, we should not overlook the progress we

have made in pushing Daesh back in Iraq and Syria and undermining the

Accord narrative of the caliphate. The Defence Secretary has set out in

his statement to the House the leading role that the UK has played

and the military success that we are achieving in Iraq and Syria. And

now, as the tide turns against Daesh. We are turning their own

weapons against them. Harnessing the power of the Internet to expose

their lives, challenge the ideology and undermine the claim to be a

viable state. On the humanitarian front, Britain continues to be at

the forefront of the international response. We have committed over

?2.3 billion of sales and at the London conference in February, we

raised more than $12 billion, the largest amount ever raised in a

single day for a humanitarian crisis. At the International said in

a support group meeting in June Ivan Basso Judy, a British proposal to

begin US you got to be seen to communities in Syria at President

Assad blocks access was agreed by all parties. -- in February.

Including the Russians and Iranians. Through the leading role, Britain is

at the forefront of the international effort to end the

setting in the Civil War. A precondition to defeating Daesh and

to dealing with the migration crisis in Europe. We are clear that we need

and inclusive political solution to this conflict and to get that, we

need to see all members using their influence to deliver the -- the

transitional Government they have all signed up for. The Government

that can provide stability, can represent all Syrians and that we in

the international Committee can work to defeating Daesh.

Does hae gree that for the threat of June 1 deadline to be credible,

World Food Programme planes need to be protected by member states or we

need to do the drops ourselves? Has operational planning begun from dive

ID and the Ministry of Defence to enable the drops to proceed? The

plan is that the drops will be made by the World Food Programme using

contracted civilian aircraft. The World Food Programme is already

making food air drops into the isolated city in the east of Syria,

and it has done so successfully without loss to those aircraft.

Clearly there are operational aspects to this, which the members

of the ISSG, particularly the Americans and the Russians are now

working through. We will seek undertakings from the regime. It is

also the case that we know that the Russians have let us say significant

influence of the operation over the regime's air defence system. We

expect all members of the ISSG to do everything in their power to ensure

those drops are successful and carried out without undue risk to

the aircrew undertaking them. I will in a moment, I will give way to the

honourable gentleman. He'll be aware that the Idomeni camp has been

closed. Is he aware of where those refugees are going to be placed as

an alternative? And are there UK officials on the ground to assist

with the refugees? I can't answer the honourable gentleman's question

but I can tell him that the UNHCR is heavily engaged in this action and

trying to ensure that the people involved, the people affected are

properly cared for throughout and relocated in accommodation, which is

at least as secure and as adequate as the accommodation that they're in

at present. I give way to my honourable friend. What assessment

has my right honourable friend make, he's said many times, that President

Putin is one of the few people in the world who can do a lot in this

situation - with the attacks yesterday on some of the Assad

strong hold areas, not touched before, what about Russia's

involvement moving forward and looking at a new dimension, it is

quite close to some Russian bases? My honourable friend is absolutely

right. The Russians will be making constant calculation about how to

extract maximum leverage from their involvement in Syria while

minimising their exposure. I suspect that some in the Russian high

command and in the Kremlin will have been deeply uncomfortable about the

fact that yesterday these Daesh attacks were launched in areas

previously thought to be under rock solid regime control and very close

to Russian military facilities. It does change theical Clarence House.

-- the calculus. It adds to the weight that we need to work together

to get a successful transition in Syria to a government that is

supported by all Syrians and then work together with that government

to defeat the evil that is Daesh. Madam Deputy Speaker, progress to

our objective of defeating Daesh will only be possible if the barrel

bombings end, if the cessation of hostilities is respected, if

humanitarian access to besieged communities is granted and if all

sides are prepared to negotiate seriously to achieve political

transition. So much for Syria. In Iraq, we will continue to continue

to support the efforts of the prime minister there to sear his country,

and to deliver the political and economic reform they need. National

reconciliation, security, stabilisation of liberated areas

from Daesh and the provision of jobs and basic services. We've always

said that winning the fight against Daesh would take time. But we have

no doubt of our ultimate success in Iraq, in Syria and indeed in Libya.

However, winning the hearts and minds of tens of millions of young,

potentially vulnerable Muslims who see extremism as a credible response

to the lack of opportunity many of them face will be a longer-term

challenge for us. I'm grateful to the Foreign Secretary in giving way.

Of course, I think everyone agrees here one has to defeat violent and

nonviolent extremism. In relation to the extremism Bill in the Queen's

speech, can the Foreign Secretary clarify how the Bill will define

when an individual has crossed the threshold in relation to what is

acceptable and what is not acceptable, so that communities and

enforcement agencies know when to take action? And will there be full

consultation with all faith communities on this matter in My

honourable friend, of course, has hit on a crucial point, that the

boundary line between acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour is a fine

one and it's one fraught with dangers. It's a minefield area. My

right honourable friend, the Home Secretary intends to put forward

some of the Government's thoughts on this and consult extensively before

legislation is introduced. I hope that re-assures my honourable

friend. I give way. I agree with much of what he's said on the

complexity of the situation in Syria, Iraq and Libya. When we have

a complex set of humanitarian, terrorist circumstances, lots of

different things, we have to act in concert across all areas of

international operation. Let me turn briefly to the issue of Yemen. We

discussed it in the House today, extremely complex situation with

huge humanitarian needs, where we were involved, whether we like it or

not, in whatever capacity, either directly or through our relationship

with Saudi Arabia, it is crucial that we act in concert across those

areas of international policy? Will' grow to an independent assessment

about the use of cluster munitions that might undermine our place in

that conflict? In relation to the specific point at the end, there's a

specific allegation that's been made that British-made cluster munitions

that will have been made and delivered probably 30 years ago, may

have been used. We don't believe that is the case. The MoD and he

will have heard the Defence Minister say this today, the MoD is carrying

out an urgent investigation into these allegations. We'll look at the

evidence. We'll then decide how to move forward. We have a high level

of confidence that British-made cluster munitions have not been used

in this conflict. Of course, we must look at these allegation that has

been made, at any evidence that is presented in support of it and

respond appropriately. He's just mentioned Libya, where with

hindsight it's clear after the fall of Gaddafi we didn't give enough

support to the government we then recognised and the place has

collapsed into anarchy and is a possible base for Isis. Secretary of

State for defence said that we were offering security assistance to the

government we now recognise, if and when they request it. Can he tell me

whether his department and other departments of Government are giving

every other possible diplomatic and political support to this

government, because until they can establish themselves as a real

administration, capable of actually delivering services to the public

and winning some public support, we run the danger again of having a

slightly fictional government in Tripoli and the rest of the country

falling prey to anarchy or even to Isis? I'm sure my right honourable

friend would readily agree, hindsight is indeed a wonderful

thing. My honourable friend has reminded me on the bench that there

were elections held in Libya after the fall of Gaddafi. It's since then

that things have gone wrong. On the question of support to the prime

minister and the government of national accord, yes, we are

providing technical, diplomatic, political assistance. He will recall

that I visited Tripoli a few weeks ago. We're working very closely with

the prime minister there, both bilaterally and through the European

Union. The prime minister was at the meeting in Vienna last Monday, in

which 20 odd countries got together to discuss how to best support what

that government is doing. I'd say this to my right honourable friend,

it is a complex situation in Libya, but I think the prime minister there

is approaching this in the right way, a bottom-up approach. He's not

trying to create a government that can rule Libya in some monolithic

fashion, because that's not practical. He's trying to create an

umbrella government in which municipalities are empowered to

deliver the services and run the structures that people need. We have

considerable experience of that approach, including indeed in Syria,

working with devolved levels of government in small areas to

establish good governance. I suspect that's a more realistic approach

than a top-down. I'm happy to give way. I do thank the Secretary of

State for giving way. On the issue of Libya, can he confirm whether or

not he's had any consultations with the neighbouring country of Algeria?

They have great experience of dealing with terrorism. They have

had huge problems as a result of the instability in Libya. They could be

a huge asset and support to stabilising that neighbouring

country. Are those consultations taking place? Yes. I can confirm

that to her. I've visited Algeria. My honourable friend has visited

aljeerament the Algerians are -- Algeria. The Algerians are playing a

significant role. For many years Algeria has taken an isolationist,

noninterventionist approach. They are at risk from what is going on in

Libya as a neighbouring country. They recognise that. They are

engaging with the challenge. We're extremely grateful for the support

that Algeria, with its considerable experience of dealing with a major

scale insurgency, that they are able to deliver. I'm going to make a

little progress, if my honourable friend will allow as he's had one

bite of the cherry already. Mr Speaker, while we step up the fight

against Daesh and Islamist extremism, the old challenge of

state-base add depression has not gone away. To our east, Russia's

disregard for international norms, its illegal an ex--ation of Crimea

and destabilisation of eastern Ukraine are echoes of an era that

frankly, most of us thought had passed with the fall of the Berlin

Wall. They represent a clear threat to the stability of the post-Cold

War European security order, and more widely, to the rules-based

international system on which an open, free trading, liberal

democracy like ours depends. As well as violating the sovereign territory

of another country and undermining the rules-based system, Russia's

actions in Ukraine has led to the loss of more than 9,000 lives and

the displacement of up to a million people from their homes.

Responsibility for this human misery lies squarely at the door of the

Kremlin, a direct result of a deliberate policy that seeks to deny

the right of independent, former Soviet Republics to determine their

own economic and political destiny. This Government remains clear that

Russia must be held to account for its actions. We will work through

the EU to keep up the economic pressure with hard-hitting and

carefully-calibrated sanctions. Those sanctions must remain in place

until such time as Russia delivers on the pledges it made at Minsk. We

will continue to provide nonlethal support and training to the

Ukrainian armed forces and building on British military units rotating

through Poland and the Baltic states, at the Nato summit in June

we will announce further measures to re-assure eastern allies in the face

of this continuing aggression. At the same time, Madam Deputy Speaker,

we will engage with Russia, where it is clearly in our national interest

to do so. Russia, along with Iran, is one of the two countries which

have real influence on the Syrian regime and as members of the ISSG

they have the principal responsibility for telling Assad it

is time to go. We will continue to work with Russia on Syria and at the

UN. We will continue to collaborate with them on counter-terrorism where

British lives are potentially at risk. But it will not be business as

usual. All nations must know that we cannot and will not look the other

way while the rules-based system is repeatedly violated. We look

forward, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the time when Russia will rejoin the

community of nations as a partner in upholding the international rules.

But our eyes are wide-open and we know that may be a long time coming.

As we said in the 2010 STS Star and again in 2015, Britain's National

security is indivisible from our economic security. We cannot keep

people safe we do not have a strong economy and vice versa. As we

continue to deal with the economic legacy we have inherited, bringing

down the deficit and restoring sustainable growth to the economy,

we have been strengthening our diplomatic muscle in emerging

economies to grow trade and to support jobs here at home. Those

efforts are paying off. The state visit of China's president last year

generated some ?40 billion of commercial deals, creating more than

5000 permanent jobs in this country. ?40 million. The UK and Indian

businesses agreed deals worth ?9 billion. In what investment from

India in 2014-15 created more than 7000 new jobs and safeguarded more

than 1500 other jobs. And since they deal with the Republic of Korea in

2011, the value of UK exports to Korea has more than doubled. While

we seek to grow our links with the world's emerging economies, our

trade and investment relationship with the European Union will always

be central to our economic success story. As the House knows, the

Government's clear view of Britain's continued prosperity is best served

by remaining a leading member of the reform European Union. It is a

membership that puts us as the number two economic power inside the

world's single -- largest single market with the seat at the

decision-making table. A market of 500 million consumers with one

quarter of the world's GDP. A market which purchases 44% of Britain's

exports. There is a world of difference between being inside such

a market with tariff free access as of right, and being outside of it,

scrabbling for a deal. Between making the rules of the market to

protect our interests and being governed by rules designed for the

benefit and advantage of others. It is a membership that safeguards the

pound and the Bank of England and with the deal that the Prime

Minister negotiated in it is a membership that keeps us out of the

Schengen agreement, outside closer union and limits the access of

migrants to our welfare system. The best of both worlds. I am happy to

give way. Thank you. He and I are good friends but we disagree on this

matter. Will the Foreign Secretary confirmed that under this much

wanted reform deal which adds up to a hill of beans that the premise has

negotiated, if the United Kingdom where to introduce measures,

financial measures that we believe to be in the city -- interest of the

City of London and those measures were deemed by the EU zone that we

would be obliged to change our measures we would have to go to the

European Court of Justice who would arbitrate and we know that the

European Court of Justice always finds in the favour of the Aquila

commune attack. We do not know that they always find in favour of the

community. We have done well when we have been challenged in the European

Court of Justice. For example, when the European Central Bank

disgracefully tried to prevent Euro denominated financial instruments

being cleared in the City of London. We went to the European Court of

Justice and we won the case with a clear declaration that what the ECB

was proposing to do was illegal. I do not access to the premise of my

honourable friend's question. I give way. Is it not the case that the

very essence of the Prime Minister's deal in Brussels, to which two

little attention has been paid, it provides a very firm guarantee that

the United Kingdom's position outside of the Eurozone would not be

used to jeopardise its position within the single market and that is

a very important safeguard and one in the context of the European Court

of Justice, and any arbitration it has to carried out, it has to be

carried -- taken into account and it has binding force? My honourable

friend is correct. Those on the other side of the argument have

tried to argue that this agreement did not have binding force in

international law, only eventually to have to concede that it did. My

honourable friend is right, the deal that the Prime Minister negotiated

is substantive and if there is a vote to being in the European Union

on June the 23rd, we will move ahead with the implementation of those

measures that will give Britain not only the advantages we already have,

the membership of the 500 million consumer strong marketplace but the

additional benefits that that deal brings. I can tell the House from my