Live Syria Statement Questions and Statements

review focusing on The Executive layer in FTSE 350 bodies.

Statement, the Prime Minister. I said I would respond personally to

the foreign affairs select committee report on extending British military

today, and copies of my response today, and copies of my response

have been made available to every member of the House. The committee

produced a comprehensive report, which asked a series of important

listen carefully to the questions listen carefully to the questions

and views expressed by members on all sides of the House. I want to

questions today. There are different questions today. There are different

ways of putting them, but they boil down to this. Why, why ask, why now,

is what we are contemplating legal, where are the ground troops to help

us meet our objectives, what is the strategy that brings together

everything we are doing, particularly in Syria, is there an

end to this conflict and is there a plan for what follows? Let me deal

with each of these questions as directly as I can. Asked, why? The

reason for at Saint is the direct threat that Isil poses jerk country.

They have attacked... They have already taken the lives of British

hostages and Crucially they have repeatedly tried

to attack us in Britain. In the last 12 months of police and security

services have disrupted no fewer than seven terrorist plots to attack

the UK. Every one of which was either linked to Isil or inspired by

their propaganda. I am in no doubt that it is in our national interest

to take action to stop them, which means taking action in Syria because

of Raqqa. But why us? Our first job of Raqqa. But why us? Our first job

is to keep the British people say. is to keep the British people say.

We have the assets to do it and we can significantly extend the

capabilities of the international Coalition forces. That is one reason

why members of the international Coalition, including President Obama

and President Hollande, have made it clear they want Britain to stand

with them in joining air strikes in Syria and Iraq. These are our

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

capabilities. As we are showing in Iraq, the IDF can carry out what is

called dynamic targeting, where called dynamic targeting, where

pilots can strike the most difficult targets a rapid pace with

extraordinary precision, and provide support to forces on the ground. We

have the brimstone system, which allows as to strike accurately with

little collateral damage, something the Americans do not have. Tornado

aircraft has no rival, 67% of the Coalition's tactical reconnaissance

in Iraq, while also equipped for strikes. In addition, the drawings

provide 70% of intelligence in Syria, but are not currently able to

use the high precision missile systems. We also have the abilities

to sustain our operations per month into the future. Of course we have

important answer to the question why important answer to the question why

us is even more fundamental, and it us is even more fundamental, and

is this. We should not be content is this. We should not be content

outsourcing our security to our allies. If we believe action can

protect us, or then we should be part of that action with our

allies, not standing aside from it. And from this moral point comes a

fundamental question, if we will not act now, when France has been struck

world can be forgiven for asking if world can be forgiven for asking if

not now, when? That leads to the next question, why now? The first

answer is because of the grave danger that Isil poses to our

security, a danger that has security, a danger that has

intensified in recent weeks. But there are additional reasons why

action now is porting. Look at what has changed. Not just the attack in

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

Resolution. And there is a real political process under way. This

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

defeat Isil for good. Up as I explained yesterday, we cannot wait

for that to be complete before we begin acting to degrade Isil and

reduce their capability to attack us. So let us be clear about the

military objectives we are pursuing. Yes, we want to defeat the

terrorists by dismantling their networks, stopping their funding,

and taking out those plotting terrorist attack against the UK, but

there is a broader objective. For as long as Isil can peddle the myth of

a so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria, it will be are rallying call

around the world. That makes us less safe. Just as we have reduced the

size of it in Iraq, in pushing it out of Iraq we have to do the same

in Syria. Another reason for action now is that the success in Iraq for

squeezing the so-called caliphate is put at risk with failure to act in

Syria. The border is not recognised by Isil, and we seriously hamper our

reached the Syrian border. So when reached the Syrian border. So when

have to ask ourselves whether the have to ask ourselves whether the

risks of in action are greater than risks of in action are greater than

the risks of taking action. Everyday the risks of taking action. Everyday

can grow stronger and more plots can can grow stronger and more plots can

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

advice, the diplomatic advice and the security advice all says yes,

that the risks of inaction are greater. Some have asked

specifically whether taking action would make the UK more of a target

for attacks. Let me tell the House, the judgment of the director-general

of the Security service and the chairman of the joint intelligence

committee is that the UK is already in the top tier of countries that

Isil is targeting. I am clear the only way to deal with that is to

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

of legality. It is a long-standing constitutional convention that we do

but the document I published today but the document I published today

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

right of self defence is recognised right of self defence is recognised

in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The right of self defence

maybe exercised individually, with it is necessary to the UK's on

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

The main basis of the global Coalition's actions against Isil in

Syria is the collective self defence of Iraq. Iraq has legitimate

government, won the support and help. It is a solid basis of

evidence on which to conclude that there is a direct link between the

presence and activities of Isil in Syria and the ongoing attack in

Iraq. Secondly, that the Assad regime are able to take action

attack on Iraq, or attacks on as. It attack on Iraq, or attacks on as. It

is also clear that the campaign against the UK and the allies have

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

lawfully used in self defence to prevent further atrocities being

committed by Isil. This is further underscored by unanimous adoption of

UN Security Council Resolution two to 49. We should be clear about what

it means and what it says. -- 2249. The whole world came together

Security Council to agree this Security Council to agree

resolution unanimously. The resolution unanimously. The

resolution states that Isil constitutes a global and

unprecedented threat to international peace and security. It

calls for member states to take, I quote, all necessary measures to

prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Isil. And

crucially, it says we should, quote, eradicate the safe haven they

have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria. Turning to

will assist us, in Iraq the answer will assist us, in Iraq the answer

is clear. We have the Iraqi security forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga. In

Syria it is more complex. The report I am publishing today shows we

believe there are around 70,000 believe there are around 70,000

Syrian opposition fighters, principally the Free Syrian Army,

who do not belong to extremist groups, and we can co-ordinated

attacks on Isil with them. In addition there are the Kurdish armed

groups who have also shown themselves capable of taking

territory, holding territory and administering it. Crucially,

relieving the suffering that the civilian population in durable under

Isil control. -- endured. Moderate armed SUNY Arabs have proved capable

of taking territory north of Aleppo, and they have swept into Idlib

province. In the south of Syria, the southern front of the Free Syrian

Army has consolidated its control over significant areas and worked to

prevent terrorists from operating. These people are ground troops, they

need our help. When they get it they succeed. So in my view we should do

more to help them from the. Those who ask questions about ground

troops are right to do so. The full answer cannot be achieved until

there is a new Syrian Government that represents all of the Syrian

people. It is this new government who will be the natural partners for

our forces in defeating Isil for good. We cannot defeat Isil simply

from the air, or purely with military action alone. It requires a

full political settlement. But the question is, can we wait for that

settlement before taking action? Again, my answer is no we cannot.

Regarding whether this is part of an overall strategy, the answer is yes.

Our approach has four pillars. First, our counter strategy means we

can address the poisonous extremist ideology that is the root cause for

the threat we face. Second our support for the diplomatic and

political process. We should be political process. We should be

clear about the process. Many across the House rightly said how vital it

is to have all of the key regional players around the table, including

Iran and Russia. We're now seeing Iran and Saudi Arabia sitting around

the same table with America and Russia, as well as France, Turkey

and Britain. All of us working towards the transition to a new

government in Syria. The third government in Syria. The third

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

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

can work in Syria. The fourth pillar is an long-term stabilisation. House

has heard many times that Britain has given over ?1.1 billion, by far

the largest commitment of any European country, second to the

United States. This is helping to reduce the need for Syrians to

attempt the perilous journey to attempt the perilous journey to

Europe. The donor confidence I am hosting in February with Germany,

Kuwait, and the... But the House is asking more questions about whether

there will be post-conflict there will be post-conflict

reconstruction efforts to support a new Syrian Government when it

emerges. Britain's answer to that question is absolutely yes. Britain

least another billion pounds for least another billion pounds for

this task. All of these elements, counterterrorism, political and

diplomatic, military and Germanic diplomatic, military and Germanic

TV, they need to happen together to achieve a long-term solution in

project long-term process. -- project long-term process. --

end goal? The initial objective is end goal? The initial objective is

to reduce Isil's opacity to do us harm. I believe this can lead to its

eradication. -- capacity. No one predict the rise of Isil, they are

not what the people of Iraq and Syria want. You do not represent the

losing ground in Iraq following losing ground in Iraq following

losses in two cities. We're not naive to the complexity of the task.

It will require patience and persistence, and our work will not

be complete until we have reached our end goal, which is having

government in Iraq and Syria which can command the confidence of all

people. In Syria that means a government without President Assad.

a terrorist, but only good a terrorist, but only good

governance can kill terrorism. This applies clearly to both countries.

People also want to know we have learnt the lessons of previous

conflict 's. Whatever then one thought of the Iraq war, terrible

mistakes were made in the aftermath in dismantling the state-owned

institutions of the country. The political process in Syria will

in time deliver new leadership, that is the transition we should support.

We are not in the business of dismantling Syria's state and

institutions. In Libya, the state and institutions have been hollowed

out by 40 years of dictatorship. The difference between Libya and Syria,

is that in Syria, we have firm international commitment from all

the backers of the future Syrian government around the table for

talks. The commitment is clear, to preserve and develop the state in

Syria and allow a new government to govern for all its people. I have

attempted to answer the main questions, why, why now, why ours,

is it legal? What is the end point? And what is the plan for a

reconstruction? I know this is a highly complex situation and I know

members will have questions. One will be about the confused and

confusing situation in Syria with regard to Russia's intervention. Let

me reassure you that the American led strategy has an arrangement with

Russia to insure the safety of all coalition forces, which would

include our brave RAF islands. Another question would be if we're

taking sides in the conflict between different factions. Our vision for

the future of Syria, as with Iraq, is not a sick teen entity, but one

government in the interests of all those people. People. We will

heartily welcome support for international action against Isil

and towards a diplomatic future in Syria. The document sets out

intercepting smugglers, ceiling borders and enforcing sanctions to

stop people trading with Isil. But ultimately, Isil is able to generate

income through its control of territory, so while we're working

with international partners to squeeze their finances where we can,

it's the rolling back of Isil's territory which will ultimately cut

off its finances. Two of the most off its finances. Two of the most

complex questions are these, will acting against temp one in Syria

actually help bring about transition? I believe the answer is

yes, not least because it can't be genuine transition without

maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria, and Isil deny

this with their current action. Destroying Isil helps the moderate

forces and these moderate forces will be crucial in the Syria's

future. The expert advice I had could not be more clear, we will not

be Isil if we waver in our view that ultimately Assad must go. We cannot

win all the majority opinion, which is vital for the long-term stability

of Syria if we were to suddenly change position. In the end, it

comes back to this question, should we take action? All those who say

that ultimately we need a diplomatic solution and the transition to a new

government in Syria, they are right. Working with the new representative

government is the way to eradicate Isil in Syria in the long-term. But

family wait for that happened before we take military action? I say we

can't. Let me be clear. There will not be a vote in this house unless

that is a clear majority for action, because we will not hand the

publicity to Isil. I also clear that any motion we bring before this

house would explicitly recognise that military action is not the

whole answer. Proud as I am a very incredible service men and women, I

will not pretend or overstate the significance of our potential

contribution. I will not understate the complexity of this issue, nor

the risks involved in any military action. But we do face a fundamental

threat to our security. We can't wait for political transition, we

have to hit these terrorists in heartlands right now, and we must

not shirk responsibility for security or hand it to others.

Throughout our history, the United Kingdom has stood up to defend our

values and our way of life. We can and we must do so again. And I

commend this statement to the house. I would like to thank the Prime

Minister for providing an advance copy of his statement, which I got

earlier today. After the despicable and horrific attacks in Paris a

fortnight ago, our first priority has to be the security of people in

this country in the future. So when we consider the case for military

action, the issue of whether what he proposes strengthens or undermines

our security must be front and centre stage of our minds. There is

no doubt that Isil has imposed a reign of terror on millions, in

Iraq, in Syria and now in Libya. All that Isil stands for is contrary to

everything that those of us on these benches have struggled for over many

generations. There is no doubt it poses a threat to our people. The

question must now be whether extending UK bombings from Iraq to

Syria is likely to reduce or increase that threat and whether it

will counter the terrorist threat in the Middle East. With that in mind,

I would like to put seven questions to the Prime Minister. First, does

the Prime Minister believed that extending air strikes to attempt to,

which is already being bombed by other powers, will make a

significant military impact on the ground, which has so far seen Isil

game as well as lose territory? Does he expect it will be a war winning

strategy or does he think that other members of the coalition, including

the Gulf states, Canada and Australia, have halted their

participation? Second, is the Prime Minister's view that the air

campaign against Isil can be successful without ground forces? If

not, does he believe that the Kurdish forces or at the back for

the Syrian army would be able to take back Isil territory if the air

campaign were successful? Is it not more likely that other more radical

forces would take over? Third, without credible or acceptable

ground forces, isn't the logic of intensified air strike campaign, can

he today will out the deployment of British ground forces to Syria?

Fourth, does the Prime Minister believed that the United Nations

security resolution gives clear and unambiguous authorisation for UK air

strikes? And what coordinated action with other United Nations member

states has there been, under the terms of the resolution, to cut off

funding, oil revenues and arms supplies from Isil into the

territory it currently holds? And in the absence of any coordinated UN

military or diplomatic strategy, does he believe that more military

forces over Syria could increase the risk of dangerous incidents, such as

the shooting down of a Russian aircraft by Turkish forces this

week. Fifth, how does the prime ministers think that an extension of

UK bombing would contribute to a negotiated political settlement in

Syria, which is widely believed to be the only solution to defeating

Isil. The conference last weekend was a good step forward, but it has

some way to go. Sixth, what assessment has he been given by

their likely impact of British air strikes in Syria of the threat in

terrorist attacks in Britain? And what impact does he believe in

intensified air campaign will have on civilian casualties in the Isil

-held territory and the wider Syrian refugee crisis, which is so enormous

and so appalling. Finally, in the light of the record of Western

military intervention in recent years, does the Prime Minister

accept that UK bombing of Syria could risk more of what President

Obama called unintended consequences? And that the lasting

defeat of Isil can only be secured by Syrian forces within the region?

Let me say that I very much respect his long-held views about these

issues and is quite correct caution before committing to any of these

actions, but I do believe there is a good answer to the seven absolutely

just it questions he asks. -- absolutely legitimate questions. I

tried to get in my flavour of the specific things we things we think

we would be able to do. It is worth listening to our closest allies, the

Americans and French, who want us to take part, not just for the cover it

provides, but because of the capabilities we bring. It is worth

listening closely to what they say, so my answer to the first question

is we would make a difference. Second, he is right to raise the

issue of ground forces and I tried to tackle it in my statement. I

would guide you that there are many who want to play down the existence

and rule of the Free Syrian Army. Our intelligence says there are many

moderate forces able to help. We can see that. He asked about boots on

the ground, we are not deploying British combat forces and we're not

going to. We think actually the presence of western boots on the

ground in that way would be counter-productive. That is one of

the things we have all learned from previous conflicts and we don't want

to make that mistake again. The fourth question is whether the UN

resolution is ambiguous. I believe it is, he rightly asks what else is

the UN doing on sanctions and embargoes and squeezing the finances

of Isil. There was a resolution in February and we should continue to

support although 's measures. He asked about dangerous incidents and

the potential for those. There is a de reflection between what Russia is

doing and what the coalition is doing. As to what happened in

Turkey, we have to get the bottom of that, but we have permission to fly

over Turkish airspace and Turkey is our ally in this conflict. He asked

whether what we are planning will help the transition. I think yes.

The existence of Isil, with the so-called caliphate, is to deny the

territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, so we can have a future Syria

with the existence of this caliphate is taking over such a large

proportion of the territory. When we look to the future of Syria, it will

meet the involvement of moderate Sunnis. He asked about the impact of

action on the threat level to this country. That is why I called it the

chairman of the joint intelligence committee and the head of MI5. Their

view is we are already at the very highest level we could be in terms

of threats from Isil. Again, this is about learning the lessons of Iraq.

We have this architecture and general intelligence committee, and

I cleared my statement with them. On the issue of civilian casualties,

which is important, I believe the truth of the matter is that the

British capabilities are one of the best ways to reduce civilian

casualties. In a year and three months of the action we have taken

in Iraq, there have been no reports of civilian casualties. We believe

we have some of the most accurate weapons known to man, so I think

extending our action into Syria is likely to reduce casualties rather

than increase them. Finally, he asked about unintended consequences

and the recent history. We can have a bigger debate about the action we

plan to take around the world, but in my view, we have two recognise

that this poisonous narrative of Islamist extremism is a battle for a

generation. We see it in Nigeria, we see it in Somalia, frankly, we see

it sometimes an urban country. We have to combat it with everything we

have got, with argument, taking away grievances, all those things

together. But I believe we thought through the consequences of this

action, and in quoting President Obama as he did, it is worth

remembering that this American president, who saw that part of his

role was withdrawing America from some of these foreign entanglements

and taking a different approach, he is not only firmly behind American

action in Syria, he is asking America's oldest friend and partner

to help out in this vital work. Can I thank the Chancellor for

responding positively to the first report on the Foreign Office budget

yesterday? Part of the committee has returned early from the region

around Isil for this statement. Other colleagues are completing

visits to ten capitals in the region visits to ten capitals in the region

over this week, and acquiring that regional perspective as part of our

enquiry into the Coalition against Isil, as was our initial report

which addressed the issue of British air strikes over Syria. Behind

that's it the bigger question of Britain's involvement in the

Coalition and whether it has the strategy to achieve the aim of

defeating Isil in Syria and Iraq. Does he agree that getting the

politics right in Iraq and Syria is the immediate priority, and we must

not lose focus on Baghdad? The committee will discuss its pure

early next week. And we will also want to report to the House on the

prospects for success in the Coalition strategy. Will my right

honourable friend come before the committee in two months to give

evidence and implementation of this strategy laid out today? Is he aware

that in light of the error and his response to the committee, it is now

my personal view that on balance the country would be best served by this

House supporting his judgment that the United Kingdom should play a

full role in the Coalition to best support and shape the politics, thus

eventual ideological defeat of Isil? eventual ideological defeat of Isil?

Can I thank first of all for coming back to be with us today. Thank him

said today about the decision he has said today about the decision he has

reached with this difficult decision we all have to make. He is

absolutely right that any action we take must be nested in an overall

strategy, which I have tried to set out. He is right that the politics

of the region are crucial in our understanding of this. Most

important of all, trying to make important of all, trying to make

sure that Iraq makes progress to being a more pluralistic and solid

country that does not face the risk of Isil. The politics and the action

go together. He asked if I will come back to his committee and the House

come back in any way that people come back in any way that people

want me to, whether it is making a want me to, whether it is making a

regular update if we decide to go regular update if we decide to go

ahead with action, or appeared in front of his committee to go

detailed questions. As in all detailed questions. As in

things, I am the House's servant. things, I am the House's

Can I begin by thanking the Prime Can I begin by thanking the Prime

Minister for advanced viewing of his statement. Given the seriousness of

with, it was valuable to have the with, it was valuable to have the

briefing last night. In the Scottish briefing last night. In the Scottish

National Party, we share the concerns of everyone in this House

and the country about the terrorist threat by Daesh. The SNP strongly

supports the international supports the international

initiative on Syria agreed in Vienna, to secure a ceasefire

Syria. The transition to stabilise Syria. The transition to stabilise

government and countering terrorist groups including Daesh. We believe

these aims will only be secured through agreement and long-term

Prime Minister, how is the UK Prime Minister, how is the UK

supporting the initiative to secure the ceasefire, the political

transition and combating terrorist like Daesh, and planning for the

long-term reconstruction and stability and support? Yesterday I

asked two questions about Syria which the Prime Minister did not

answer. I would like to repeat them today. How will the UK plan secured

peace on the ground and Syria? Which ground forces will take, hold and

administered territories captured from Isil in Syria? How many Syrian

troops are in the north-east of Syria on the front line against

Daesh, as opposed to countering Daesh, as opposed to countering

Syrian regime forces? How will the UK plan long-term stability and

reconstruction in Syria? The UK spent 13 times more bombing Libya

run on its post-conflict stability and reconstruction. As I asked

yesterday, how much does the Prime Minister estimate the total cost of

reconstruction will be, and does he think the amount in his statement

today will be sufficient? Two years ago the Prime Minister urged us to

bomb the opponents of Daesh in Syria. That would probably have

strengthened this terrorist organisation. Today the Prime

Minister wants us to launch a bombing campaign without effective

ground support in place or a fully costed reconstruction and stability

plan. The Prime Minister asked us to consider his plan, we have listened

closely. However he questions posed by the foreign affairs select

committee remain unanswered. And unless the Prime Minister answers

these questions satisfactorily, the Scottish National Party will not

vote for air strikes in Syria. Can I thank him for paying tribute to my

National Security Agency is, who has been working hard to provide factual

briefings on a Privy Council basis briefings on a Privy Council basis

to parties across the House of Commons. I think he is right that

what is required is political agreement and the long-term

reconstruction of Syria. Argument is not to disagree with that, my

arguments is that as well as that we need to take action to help protect

us against terrorism we have seen on the streets of Paris and elsewhere.

He asked some technical questions about how we were supporting the

renegotiation process in Vienna. We're playing a full part in it, and

working with United Nations envoys who are trying to bring the parties

together. In terms of two specific questions, there are the Free Syrian

Army on the ground, and the Kurdish forces, which makes it a more

complicated which are banned Iraq, where we have Iraq security forces.

But we can help these forces to hold on to hold and take ground and

relieve suffering, and we have seen that with what has happened around

to -- three. -- Kobani. The question to -- three. -- Kobani. The question

comes up, can we wait for Isil to have a partner to take some action

that will degrade Isil and its capabilities to do us harm? He asked

about the long-term reconstruction of Syria. As we debated yesterday

with the Autumn Statement, we have one of the largest development

budgets anywhere in the world. I have said we would be prepared to

commit ?1 billion to that sort of reconstruction, and I think the

world would come together when there is a new government in Syria, and

the Syrian people who are many of them currently outside of the

country, they would not be left wanting support. They would get the

support of Britain and I believe the rest of this developed world. He has

proper part with allies on the proper part with allies on the

meaningless international border, but also for the political process

we can have a voice in bringing Americans closer to the Russians and

the Saudis and her closer to the Iranians. Does he accept that in the

medium-term, we have to look for can produce stability and the more

peaceful situation, and we may have to prepare ourselves for something

that falls far short of what a liberal Western democracy would look

like. It is not the experience of the Arab Spring that going straight

to democratic elections does not to democratic elections does not

agreement is going to involve some agreement is going to involve

rather unpleasant or being rather unpleasant or being

would naturally be allies, and would naturally be allies, and

President Assad and other people may have to be involved because the big

enemy is Isil, which is dangerous, and not possible to engage in any

political negotiations. He speaks with great wisdom about these

matters and it is important to have his support. He has never been an

unquestioning support of military action, and he thinks these things

about the future government of about the future government of

Syria, the transition that needs to take place, following short of some

of this democratic norms we want to of this democratic norms we want to

see, of course that is likely. When I say that I believe Assad cannot be

part of the long-term government of Syria, in many ways that is not a

political preference, the blood has been shed means he will not command

the support of the Syrian people. Do the support of the Syrian people. Do

I believe that a transition in Syria will produce a democracy? Of course

it won't, but it might give us a partner that could make us safer.

Can I remind him that two years ago he was equally eloquent in telling

us how essential it was to bomb the us how essential it was to bomb the

Assad regime? I believe that the decision taken to the House in July

we followed his advice, the we followed his advice, the

situation in Syria would be even worse than it is now. With the Prime

Minister agree that the crux of the issues of this House is this. Would

military action help to defeat Isis? I happen to believe the answer is

no, and I wonder how many members of the House really believe it will

make any real difference in defeating this heated death cult. I

do not want to re-enter all the arguments about chemical weapons

used. All I will say is that I listened to his views, but I also

think of the thousands of people including children who have been

killed by his barrel bombs using chemical weapons since we held the

vote. He asked the right question, will this make us safer or not? Will

it help us to degrade Isil or not? It is the views of our closest

allies and military and intelligence experts, and those responsible for

our domestic security, all of those people are saying to us that we

the Coalition to help make us safer, the Coalition to help make us safer,

which is why I bring forward the statement and with the support of

the House I will bring forward a vote. Following the limited but

important progress on the political important progress on the political

track in Vienna and the unanimous adoption by the United Nations

resolution 2249 on Isil, is it not clear that the Prime Minister's

considered response today is absolutely compelling. Is this not

responsibility to protect innocent responsibility to protect innocent

civilians both here and in the civilians both here and in the

United Kingdom and in Syria? I think this is about discharging our

responsibilities, chiefly to our own citizens. It is my view that this

action will help overtime to make us safer. We will never be safe while

Isil exists, while the so-called caliphate exist, and we demonstrated

in Iraq that we can take its territory, we can destroy its

infrastructure and make progress, but we are hampered by not being

agree that the eradication of Isil agree that the eradication of Isil

is crucial, we should not put off this decision. I am sure the Prime

Minister is correct to say that the continued existence of the so-called

caliphate is an inspiration to violent extremists in the Middle

East and our own country. Did he perhaps give some indication, I know

these things are still subject to negotiation however, about what the

characteristics of a legend met characteristics of a legend met

transitional government might be? Letting agree with him about the

so-called caliphate. There are so-called caliphate. There are

military objectives in terms of military objectives in terms of

trying to break up the terrorist training camps infrastructure and

the terrorists themselves, but there is a bigger picture, which is while

the so-called caliphate exist side and believe we are safe, so we

should be part of its dismantling. The question he asks about the

characteristics of transition, this is what is being discussed in

Vienna, but it should start with ceasefires. It should then proceed

what a transitional government and what a transitional government and

institutions would look like, and then to be followed probably

by-elections and at some stage a transition away from the currently

do ship. -- leadership. This will not be a scientific process, but to

end it is political transition that end it is political transition that

will help us to complete the final destruction of Isil. Military force

cannot do it on its own. There is a political, diplomatic and military

solution and we need to do all of it.

Many members, including me personally, entirely agree with the

Prime Minister that Isil must be crushed militarily in Syria and the

crushing will indeed have to be military, but as he acknowledged

yesterday, air strikes alone will not be effective. They have got to

be in court order nation with credible ground forces. The

suggestion that there are 70,000 non-Islamist moderate ground forces

is a revelation to me and I suspect most other members in this house.

Adequate ground forces depend on the participation of the Syrian army, so

if the dictator Assad refuses to resign, which is the greater danger

to our national interest? Syria under him or the continued existence

and expansion of Isil? Because you may have to choose between one and

the other. There is a lot of grounds of agreement between us. We agree on

the dangers of Isil, we agree it needs to be crushed, we agree we

will need the involvement of ground forces, and we also agree that we

need an Isil- first strategy, that Isil is the greater threat to the

United Kingdom. I think the only area of disagreement between this

one on a technical point. The technical point is what I have said

about 70,000 moderate forces in Syria is not my figure, it is the

considered opinion of the joint intelligence committee, a committed

it that was set up and given independence to avoid any of the

mistakes that we had in the past of the potential misuse of intelligence

and other information. It is they are considered view that document

has been entirely cleared by them, has has my statement. The other

issue we have to come to is that in time, the best ground troops should

be the Syrian army. My view is that Bobby Moore likely to happen after a

political transition has taken place in Syria, and my contention is the

problem believing it can be done with Assad is that you will never

get the ceasefire, you'll never get the Brit a patient of the majority

of Sunnis while Assad is still there. But I think the area of disk

agreement between us is narrowing, as is the area of disagreement

between Britain and America and France. We all see the need for

political and military intervention. The Prime Minister has made a strong

moral and legal case for defeating what is EU totalitarianism in both

Syria and Iraq. The real question is obviously the practical one and that

is what we want to consider. If I press him on this issue, given the

different Russian objectives in Syria, how will he avoid weaving

support or appealing to give support to Assad forces and becoming

appended on Assad forces and how will he avoid giving succour to Isil

in its recruitment in the region. This is the important issue. We have

been very clear, are target is Isil, not the regime, but we will be help

in our combating of Isil if the Sunni majority in Syria believe we

need a transition away from Assad. He can't and the long term be

running that country. Russia sees the danger of Isil and is attacking

it, we see the dangers of Isil and are attacking it. The difference is

that Russia is still attacking that moderate Syrian forces that we

believe, in time, could be part of a genuine transition in Syria and

would have the support of all the Syrian people. We do have ways of

the conflicting, I met with President Vladimir Putin at a

conference. We believe the attack on the Russian airliner will bring home

to the Russian people that this needs and Isil -1st strategy and

that is where we should focus. I congratulate you are setting out a

comprehensive approach on that this strategy. Does he accept that for

the United Kingdom not to act is in itself a policy position that will

have consequences, because the jihadists heater is not for what we

do, but for who we are what we stand for. Does he agree that we do not

have the luxury of not confronting Isil, because they have chosen to

confront us? The question is do we confront them over there or

increasingly take the rest of confronting them here? -- take the

risk. It is my judgment and the judgment of those independent,

impartial, highly trained advisers on security and military issues who

take the same view, that inaction is the greater risk. I thank the Prime

Minister for his statements. There are understandable knee jerk

reactions on both sides to the horror of Paris and Beirut. There

will be those who say intervene, there will be those who see

intervene at all costs, and there will be those who say do not

intervene, no matter what the evidence points that. The Liberal

Democrats have set out five criteria against which we can judge the

statement. On that basis, can I press him on two points? The Prime

Minister recognises that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil. He has

already heard that he will need to give much more evidence to this

house to convince it that the ground operations that are there have the

capability and credibility to deliver on the ground, that twitchy

nose needs to be delivered. What role will golf states play in

delivering this strategy, if that's the way we choose to go. Also in the

statement, there is a reference to humanitarian aid, but he will now do

my debate can help an innocent family dodge a bomb. That is no

reference in his statement to establishing safe havens or no -bomb

zones for civilians when this action takes place. Will he answer that

question? His party is clearly wanting to engage with the

argument, think very carefully and consider the national security

arguments before making a judgment. I know the National Security adviser

was pleased to be the outside and stands ready to brief them and

answer any detailed questions they might have. I take very seriously

what happened in Paris, I know absolutely that could just as well

happen in the UK or Belgium or elsewhere in Europe, and the threat

we face is very severe. But I want us to consider this, I don't want

anyone to feel that due process hasn't been followed, so that people

agree with the case being put and they can in all conscience vote to

support it. In terms of the two specific questions, we will continue

to deliver humanitarian aid. On the no -bomb zones, the difficulty with

those is they have to be enforced, and that can require that taking out

of air defences, which would actually spread the conflict wider

and also does in many cases require the presence of ground troops. We

would be putting in ground troops for those purposes. I don't want to

declare the safe zone unless it is genuinely safe. But what we want is

a growing part of Iraq and Syria to be safe, because we have a political

agreement to deliver the ceasefire is a growing part of Iraq and Syria

to be safe, because we have a political agreement to deliver the

ceasefires we need. On the question of ground troops and the role of

Gulf countries, they, on the whole, have been helping to fund the

moderate Syrian opposition, who need to play a part in the future of this

country, and the strongly support the action Britain is proposing to

take. He's absolutely right that puts on the are ultimately essential

if bombing is to be relevant. I would like him to convince me that

what he refers to as the Freeze Syrian Army actually exists rather

than is a label we applied to a ragbag group of clans and tribal

forces with no coherent thought. I'd like him to convince me there is a

moderate group we can back, whereas in times of constitutional

dissolution, it is almost a law of human nature that people rallied to

the most extreme and forceful advocate of their group. There are

no moderates. I'd like to believe these forces can be persuaded to act

against the Islamist 's, with the last time he wanted and expected

them to act against Assad. I very much respect the point of view he

takes, because he is absolutely asking the right question about what

troops are on the ground to help us. The truth is there are moderate

forces, there are the forces of the Three Syrian Army, they have a role

in the southern part of the country, abutting the Jordan border. They

have prevented Isil from taking vital ground. We can see the effect

when we work either with them or Kurdish forces, we can see the

effect of their taking ground, holding ground and administering

territory, as I said. Let me add this point, there is one sure way to

make sure that there is only one choice for Assyrians who don't back

Assad to join Isil, and that will be of we don't support the moderate

forces. Most people in Syria are not massive fans of Assad or Isil. Most

people want a pluralist country with the king get on with their lives.

That is what other countries are fighting for and that is why they

deserve our support. The Prime Minister makes a strong case to the

house today, but he will be aware that members on both sides of the

house will want reassuring that he and his government will indeed show

the persistence and patience required over many months to get

agreement on both political strategy and reconstruction in Syria and

Iraq. What reassured us can he give that his government will provide

that? The commitment I can give is that this is the number one national

security issue we face, but also the migration crisis in Europe is a

massive question for all European countries, Britain included, and it

deserves a maximum amount of attention and resources we can give

it. I believe will have to be patient and persistent, not just on

the diplomatic and humanitarian angles, where I believe we have a

good track record. We didn't suddenly respond to the Syrian

refugee crisis, we have been working on that over the past four years. We

will have persistence in the military action we take, just as we

have in Iraq, where are action has led to a 30% reduction in Isil -held

territory. The strategy we are pursuing does take time, because

you're working with the government on the ground in Iraq and forces in

Syria, so you can expect immediate results, but over time, it will make

us safer. If the attack, God forbid, had happened in London and

not in Paris, I believe that today the British people would be

outraged, dismayed and upset that our allies did not have our back,

and that their politicians were taking so long to procrastinate

about whether to come to their help. By Minister, we now you need our

vote in this house to give you support. Given your statement

today, we asked the good men and women of the opposition to come to

our aid sooner rather than later. In putting the question of what we

would be feeling if there was an attack on London rather than Paris,

I think she makes a good point. Let's be frank, this attack could

just as well have been in London as it was in Paris, and we should

recognise what a closer line is we have with France, what a closer line

is we have the United States, and how together we can make our world

safer. As for this boat, which I hope will be held, although we would

hold it if there a danger of losing it. It's not of government pride,

it's about the importance of national security and the message it

would send her enemies. I'm trying to make sure we draw together the

biggest possible coalition of members of Parliament from all sides

of the hose to support what I promise we'll be in motion that

stresses the importance of strategy, every element of that strategy, the

importance of post-conflict reconstruction. I figure many points

in the motion that was passed at the Labour Party conference on this

issue that have either been addressed, such as the need for the

UN resolution, or can be addressed through the action we are taking.

Everyone has to come to their own decision, but I don't want to give

anyone a way out of making that decision over some mistake over

process. That wouldn't be right. Prime Minister for his statement,

for the briefings we have received that a national level and for the

discussions in recent days. At times like this it is right to thank our

brave and precious service men and servicewomen who stand ready to do

their duty. Can I say that we know their duty. Can I say that we know

from experience the consequences of appeasing and indulging terrorism

for too long, and will the Prime Minister confirmed today that unlike

last time, the action foreshadowed today is for Isil terrorists and no

one else. I would like to confirm that for us the important issues are

an effective overall strategy, the targeting of terrorists, and there

is an end point. We stand ready to do what is in the best interests of

our national security. If it protects our people here and abroad

then we must act. I commend the Prime Minister on the statement. Can

I thank him and say that he speaks for the whole country thanking the

Armed Forces for the work they are doing to combat Isil. I can give him

the assurance that we are speaking the assurance that we are speaking

about action against Isil, not anyone else. I can also say that I

agree that being clear about strategy and targeting and about the

end point of what we are trying to achieve, they are all very much part

of our approach. Regional powers and allies in the Middle East believe

that in the absence of a realistic long-term strategy and proper local

knowledge, we risk repeating the errors we made in our interventions

in Iraq, Afghanistan after 2006, and Libya. Key questions remain

unanswered. How best to combat unanswered. How best to combat

sectarianism and extremism and the ideology that all extremist groups

feed off, not just Daesh. We have been talking about business flows

for over a year now, with no affect. I ask him to look again at his

figure for 70,000 Free Syrian Army. Because we have been told... Can I

ask this, without these answers, air strikes will only reinforce the

West's feel you're in the region generally at a time when already

been to many craft chasing too many targets. I believe what they are too

our country, but I would agree with our country, but I would agree with

him that we have to combat our ideology, and that is a big part of

our strategy, what we're saying all our schools and universities must

do, what communities must do together. This is something that we

have taken more action on than any other countries. Regarding starving

Isil of resources, I agree, I will be the first to push this. Remember

they get their money from selling oil to President Assad. Get their

money from owning and occupying such a large amount of territory. On the

70,000 figure, this is not my figure. These figures come directly

from security and intelligence experts who advise me, now filtered

process, set up under the Butler process, set up under the Butler

enquiry after the Iraq war. I am determined we learned the lessons of

that conflict, but surely it cannot that conflict, but surely it cannot

be a lesson that when we are threatened and can make a difference

we should somehow stand back. The Prime Minister was commended,

rightly, for not lashing out militarily after the provocation of

the atrocities of Tunisia, but he is wrong now to ignore the real threat

the Isil plan, which is to escalate a regional war into a world war

between Christians and Muslims, and wouldn't our action now repeat what

we did in 2003, when we deepened the conflict, deepening the divide

between Muslims and Christians, that is their strategy. And want this

action now lead to more? The great threat is home-grown terrorism, and

isn't his action likely to increase recruits to terrorists, to jihadis,

honourable gentleman deeply wants to honourable gentleman deeply wants to

have the peaceful world that we all dream of, and we have something in

common with that. Isil have taken action against us already. They were

behind the murder of the people on the beach in June as the. They

butchered our friends and allies and citizens in Paris. In terms of the

battle between Muslims and Christians, that is what we want to

avoid. It is in working with ... As avoid. It is in working with ... As

for Isil, they butchered Muslims in vast numbers, which is why they have

sub contract that work-out to anyone sub contract that work-out to

else. For those of us who saw else. For those of us who saw

another Prime Minister at the another Prime Minister at the

dispatch box and felt we voted to dispatch box and felt we voted to

take military action under false take military action under false

premise, can I thank the Prime premise, can I thank the Prime

Minister for coming to this House Minister for coming to this

and his approach and openness over and his approach and openness

what I believe is a very real and what I believe is a very real and

present threat to citizens in the UK? There can be no doubt that we

would bring a very specific military capability through our position

guided missiles. If and when we join in this military action in Syria, is

the Prime Minister satisfied that we have sufficient stocks and

manufacturing capability to sustain and fulfil our military objectives

in Syria? I can confirm we do have sufficient stocks, but let me

respond to the wider point. It is respond to the wider point. It is

true that what happened in 2003 over Iraq poisoned the well in many ways

about the debate about these issues, about the debate about these issues,

and I have tried to go about this in as clearly as possible. The widest

possible Coalition, strong Arab and Muslim partners, trying to take the

House through this every step of the way. But what I would say to

colleagues is that we mustn't let 2003 and decisions about Iraq hold

us back from taking correct us back from taking correct

decisions after proper consideration. To do so, it is not

just about letting down allies of anyone, we would be letting down

ourselves and the people we are here to represent. Isn't it essential in

any prelude to a war to be sure of your allies and of the objectives?

Isn't it a fact that Turkey has been buying oil from Isil, they used

Turkey's trucks to store it, they have been bombing the Kurds, who

have been fighting Isil. They shot down a Russian jet, even though

Russia is wanting to fight Isil. He has got an objective to get rid of

Assad, a Russian ally has got the opposite objective. What a crazy

war. Enemies to the right of us, enemies to the left. Keep out. The

one thing I agree is that we should be clear about our allies and

objectives, which include not just the United States and France, but

also Gulf states and others in the region who are almost coming

together in an alliance to get rid of Isil. We also need to be clear

about our objectives, and that is the military targets I spoke about,

but also stopping the caliphate. Regarding smuggling, they have taken

action to try to stop this, confiscating oil and trying to seal

the border. Should they do more? Of course they should, and that is part

of our strategy. Last night two senior French military officers told

me how much their country would really appreciate it if we joined

them fully in taking the fight to Syria. Pinpoint accurate bombing by

the RAAF would help destroy Daesh. I applaud the Prime Minister for

trying to get parliamentary approval for defensive action in Syria, and

ask that we bring this highly potent gesture to a vote of this House as

soon as next week because our allies really want us to prove that we are

fully with them. Red meat a tribute to my honourable friend. He knows

the importance of making these decisions after careful

consideration, and he knows the importance of standing by allies. I

thank the Prime Minister for the statement. I was on the bench in

2000 and -- 2002 when Tony Blair discussed the war on Iraq. Plaid

us it was a matter of integrity. So us it was a matter of integrity. So

I would ask the Prime Minister before he comes to this House again

to put the case for more award to the vote, but he should examine his

conscience, all choices short of conscience, all choices short of

warming, as we all must, as it is a case of life and death, but for all

agree this is a matter of integrity, agree this is a matter of integrity,

and there is no part of me that wants to take part in a -- any

military action which I do not believe is 100% for our safety. I

know the Iraq vote was a time of great difficulty for the House, but

we must not let that hold us back from making correct and thought

such threat. And we are. The bomb in such threat. And we are. The bomb in

Paris that could -- the bomb in Paris that could -- the bomb in

Paris, that could have been London. Paris, that could have been London.

not. I cannot say we will remove the not. I cannot say we will remove the

threat through the action we take, threat through the action we

but do I stand here with advice but do I stand here with advice

behind me that taking action will degrade and reduce that threat over

telling me that. Given Britain's telling me that. Given Britain's

historic connections with the historic connections with the

region, may I strongly endorse my right honourable friend's view

expressed in the memorandum this morning that now is attained scale

up defence and shamanic TV and efforts to resolve the conflict. May

I urge them to attend to -- intensified discussions with

President Putin, who has the ear of Assad. It was because of air forces

that stopped Iraq falling into the hands of Isil completely, so it

makes no sense to stop at the Iraqi border today. I am grateful for his

support. The point he makes about Iraq is potent because there was a

danger of Isil overrunning Iraq, which was stopped through a

combination of action from this sky, including us and legitimate ground

about the importance of discussing about the importance of discussing

as I will continue to do. There is a as I will continue to do. There is a

gap to us, but I believe it is reducing. I agree that the

diplomatic and political process diplomatic and political process

must play a key part in our approach to the complex situation in Syria,

and credit should be given to the and credit should be given to the

part played so far. But with some limited progress coming out of

Syria, with address the concerns coming through to the select

committee report, that our ability to continue the key diplomatic role

will be compromised if we joined the bombing?

I think this is a very important question, which is does taking

action against Isil in Syria make a political agreement more likely or

less likely? I think it makes it more likely, because firstly, you

need a Syria with territorial integrity. Unless we deal with Isil,

we would have a Syria to have a transition in. She was a moderate

Sunni forces in Syria need to play a part in the future of that country,

so we should be helping them, including through what we do with

Isil, rather than seeing them being wasted away. The cautious way and

wise waiver by Minister has said these questions, would you not agree

with me big decision taken was in September last year, when we decided

to attack Isil. That decision remains today, and some of the

decisions now us be taken by Himmler, the generals and

intelligence chiefs and not necessarily by the hostages to

political fortunate in this house. Looking back to the decision be made

about Isil in Iraq, that judgment was the right one and Isil had been

pushed back in quite a large weight since that decision. As for coming

in front of this house, I have been very clear that I reserve the right

to take action in Britain's interest when I need to, but for the

meditated action, we have this convention, where there should be a

vote in the house before taking action. I find it rather anxious

that you seem to be responding on a something must be done, that's not

all was the basis for the best decisions. I wonder whether the

Prime Minister has received information about strikes in Iraq

that have definitely hit civilian areas, the fact that there is an

increase in refugees, because they do not know which way to run. We do

need to be conscious of the risk of recruitment. The people who bombed

London in 2005 and the people who bombed Paris live here on we will

not bombed them out of existence. We know this may well increase

recruitment of extremists here. This absolutely is not a something must

be done strategy. It is about careful consideration bringing

together all the parts of the plan, diplomatic, political, humanitarian,

reconstruction and military action. The opposite of what she would say

is, doing nothing on this front, also has consequences. And those

consequences we have to consider very carefully. In terms of

dangerous recruitment of Islamist extremists in a room country, as

long as that caliphate exists, we are at a greater risk, in my view.

May I commend the approach set out in the statement, particularly that

he is working with our allies. But can I urge him to President Obama to

ask him when the United States is going to show more resolve. Isn't it

strange that during the Bosnian conflict, they mounted perhaps 130

exercises a day, when every aircraft was cleared to drop or shoot,

whereas in Syria, they are doing perhaps three a day and only some

aircraft are cleared should drop or shoot. Shouldn't we expect more from

the United States of this alliance is going to be successful? I am very

grateful for that support. He is right to say it is important to have

a clear strategy, to have a set of goals and a clear means to achieve

them. In terms of what the Americans are doing, they are bearing a lot of

the burden of attacking Isil in Syria, but with other allies,

including moderate Arab states. Obviously, the greater part we play

in response to their request, the greater influence we can have in the

course of the campaign, and indeed, the greater accuracy we can insist

on in terms of targeting. The Prime Minister has made a very powerful

case this morning. On Tuesday this week, the head of counterterrorism

and evidence to the home affairs committee said the threat of Isil in

this country was very real. Can I press on two points? Worsley, in an

inevitable consequence of an intervention means the migration

ices will get worse. As the rest of the EU ready for this? Secondly, he

says, he is the servant of the house. We are all servants of the

people. Could I invite him to invite leaders of the Muslim community to

meet with him at Downing Street, so he can put the case to them as

eloquently as he has put it to us? I do believe there are all speaking

with the same voice about the risks we face from the caliphate. He is

right to raise the risk of migration. In the end, the only way

to solve the crisis is a political solution in Syria. I think he's

right to say how important it is to discuss all of these issues with

members of the Muslim community. I have set up a new engagement Forum

and I will look very closely the specific idea he puts. I support and

Isil - first strategy, but can he explain how we're going to succeed

with that strategy if it is not shared by Turkey, which seems to be

more interested in bombing the Kurdish than bombing Isil? It is

right to have a strategy that is Isil-1st. What we're seeing the

mothers involved in the process is a growing understanding that the true

enemy is Isil. I think if you look at what happened with the hideous

bombing in Turkey, which has now been firmly laid at the dawn of

Isil, you do see a growing understanding from Turkish leaders

that Isil is an enormous threat to their country. It might have been

helpful if you'd said more about how robust the intelligence is to

support the fact he's put forward, particularly the 70,000 Syrian

fighters. The matter of ground forces, I think that's where the key

weakness is. Could he say what efforts he's continuing to make to

persuade Iraqi government to do more to support the Sunnia, because they

will be crucial in defeating Isil. We need more progress on hiring

Sunnis and Kurdish people into the Syrian troops, so there are trips

who will be trusted by local people when they clear and hold territory

held by Sunni tribes. We are doing this already, we have people

training, at their request to us. I'm sure they'd like us to do more.

We'll keep on looking at the requests. On the robustness of the

intelligence case about the ground forces, this is all clear through

the authorities in a way that didn't exist before the Iraq war. If the

house wants to invite some of these senior officials to give detailed

evidence, I'm very happy for that to happen. In no way do I want to be

accused of inventing intelligence information or overstating it, I'm

trying to understate everything. The only thing am absolutely clear about

is the face of threat and we should deal with that. The Prime Minister

has made a compelling, considered case today. As somebody who voted

against action last time this came to the house, I'd like to say I will

be joining them in standing not only with our allies but with the

countless thousands of Muslims who have been enslaved, massacred and

tortured across the region. I have just one question for him and that

is, that he tell us what the assurance he can give to our forces

were supporting Kurdish forces on the ground that they would be bombed

by Russia? This is a different question that the house is

considering and I do want to go back over past ground, this is a new

question and I would appeal to colleagues right across the house to

respond in the way she has done. In terms of the moderate forces, this

is the remaining disagreement between us and Russia. Russia so far

has done more to inflict damage on moderate forces than on Isil. There

is some sign of that changing and we need to encourage that to change

more. Not least because, in the process we have had passed, the

Russians have accepted that people like the From The Syrian Army and

the representatives should be a part in Syria. As a member of the Foreign

Affairs Committee, and like to thank the Prime Minister for coming to the

house today to deal with some of the issues raised in a report on how we

can best ring and end to Isil. This house has been asked to commit to

military action in the past, and that has ended badly. I do believe

he has yet answered our questions adequately on issues like growing

trips or a long-term strategy. Further to the comments from the

chairman, will he give evidence before this house approves military

action. And happy did appear before the committee, I can't do that

before a vote in this house, but were there to be a vote in this

house, I would appear in this hat is at this dispatch box for a

full-day's debate, and I will sit and listen to contributions, I will

take questions, I will take as many interventions as I possibly can. I

would say, the select committee did as good questions and I would urge

him to read our response in full. The chairman has indicated that the

answers are satisfactory, and I would ask him as a member of that

respect it's committee to look carefully, and if there are other

point he was to raise, I am happy to enter correspondence with him. The

Prime Minister will know that some of the regional tensions in the

Middle East and in Syria, stem from mutual hostility and antagonism

between Iran and Saudi Arabia. During our committee visit to those

countries, we were given assurances that both countries are prepared to

start constructive dialogue. Would he good offices at the United

Nations to bring these countries together to try to make sure that

their hostility stops going forward. I think he's absolutely right, that

dialogue between Saudi Arabia and Iran is going to be crucial to

providing the backdrop to a political solution in Syria. We need

to make sure that the potential conflict between Sunni majority

nations take step to identify the common NMI, which is this Islamist

extremism, most notably through Isil, which is a threat to us and a

massive threat to the stability of the region. It is important that the

Prime Minister provides a really assurances that many of my

colleagues are seeking, particularly in terms of reconstruction after

conflict, but isn't it a pivotal moment at the United Nations

security council resolution, and he confirmed that it doesn't just

permit all necessary steps to be taken to eradicate Isil? It doesn't

just allow all messes as a steps, but it actually calls upon member

states to take all necessary steps. And what would it say about our

judgment if we fail to take heed of the appeal from the United Nations?

I think he makes a very powerful point. On the resolution, it

confirms the right of member states to defend themselves and others and

it confirms the need to do so against Isil. I think it is a very

powerful point. When people talk about knee jerk reactions, we need

to think about what is changed. What has changed is we do have a UN

security council resolution, Paris this happens, the advice for action

is so clear. Members will be thinking carefully about this and

rightly so, but looking at the party conference motion last year, the

first point about opposing action until the following conditions were

met, the first point was clear and unambiguous, authorisation from the

United Nations. That is a very important step forward, so members

who feel this is the right step should see that as a very important

point. I thank the Prime Minister for the great care he has taken to

convincing case today, but he and I convincing case today, but he and I

sat in this chamber when a very convincing case was made for the

Iraq war, so we need to be very careful about this. He may want --

he may not want to speak in public about it, but many of us will meet

to be convinced about the operational bases for this. I think

the weakest part of his argument was his response about this ragbag army

of Syrians, but they wouldn't take territory from Isil. He would want

to see it, but we have to cooperate with Russia and Assad if we want to

solve this and go on with reconstruction.

I would say to him we should not let that, we have two examine the case

in front of us know, from what you will feel they were told in 2003.

The point he makes about one of the most difficult arguments is the

issue of ground troops. He is right. It is probably the most difficult

argument. I am not denying that, I am not attending there is some

perfect Armed Forces ready for us to work with. I am saying do not

underestimate the fact that there are Free Syrian Army forces and

Kurdish forces that can help. I am not overplaying them, they do exist.

They are doing good work and we can help them. I have said specifically,

the real arrival of ground troops we need will follow from a political

transition and a new government in Syria. The only difference between

us and the tween myself and the honourable member is whether or not

we could actually team up with Assad. I do not think that is

practical or doable. I hope we do not have to let this difference

between us mean we have to end up in different lobbies. We understand

asthma as we can act -- inasmuch as asthma as we can act -- inasmuch as

we can act now to reduce the threat, we can act now to reduce the threat,

we should. That I have understood him correctly, he thinks that UK's

participation in existing military action in Syria would fulfil two

functions. First of all by distraught and Isil communications

to help guard against terrorist threats here, and secondly to buy

time for forces on the ground in Syria to push Isil, Daesh back, even

pending a political settlement in the country. On that second point,

judgment that if that is achieved in judgment that if that is achieved in

pushing them back, what are the forces that are most likely to move

on to fill the gap in advance of the political settlement that we want to

see? He is absolutely right. Let me answer him in a slightly strange

way, which is when Russia bombed the Free Syrian Army, the forces that

went into that area tended to be went into that area tended to be

we take action against Isil, where we take action against Isil,

they are moderate forces are Kurdish they are moderate forces are Kurdish

act in conjunction with them, they act in conjunction with them, they

can take all on the Minister territory. We should not overstate

what their abilities are, and we what their abilities are, and we

have to wait for a transition in have to wait for a transition in

Syria to have the full answer, but the question is can we make progress

now? My answer is yes. Can I thank him for his comprehensive statement

this morning? Could I caution him this morning? Could I caution him

ground troops? God forbid further ground troops? God forbid further

major attacks on the West could, I say could, forced the Western forces

to deploy and prevent further atrocities on our sheets. I have

great respect for him and his great respect for him and

knowledge of military issues, but we knowledge of military issues, but we

do have to think here about the danger of being counter-productive,

and I think there is good evidence from history that the presence of

Western ground troops could be radicalising. That is why we are on

a careful path of saying we support action from the air and the troops

application of British ground application of British ground

troops. I am keen to accommodate the interest of colleagues, which is

that regard by brevity to be that regard by brevity to be

lawyer, Emily Thornberry. I wanted lawyer, Emily Thornberry. I wanted

was today. I am very disappointed. I was today. I am very disappointed. I

have many questions but I will ask just one. That is about the military

strategy. I know the Prime Minister agrees that we cannot bomb Syria

into a Western-style democracy from 30,000 feet. I want to focus on

ground troops. These ground troops he speaks about, the 70,000 moderate

Sunnis seem to be in the wrong place. There is a question about

whether they exist, but the most important question I want to ask the

Prime Minister is this. Given that the Russians are supposed to be some

form of Ally to us, in relation to this I imagine we will have

co-ordinated action with them, the Russians continue to bomb the

moderate Sunnis, so there will be chaos on the ground. As I

explained, the military strategy is to take out the terrorist targets we

can, that will help to degrade and dismantle Isil in Syria, to deflate

and destroy the caliphate which is a radicalising force around the world.

We do not agree and agreed a guard with the Russians for the reasons I

have given. We want them to focus on Isil, not on the Free Syrian Army.

That is their discussion we need to have with them. The gap between us

is getting narrower. I am prepared is getting narrower. I am prepared

to support the Prime Minister and military action against Islamic

State, who poses a severe than direct threat, but not against

Assad, who does not. I want Isil only strategy. Can he confirm that

the motion he will bring forward will be very tightly defined, which

will be military action against Islamic State only, and will not

give him any room to go ahead under attack Assad on the back of this

motion? I can rarely give him full satisfaction, but on this I can. I

guarantee that if we have the resolution, it will say exactly

that. He has made a strong and compelling case particularly on the

grounds of national security for action, and I welcome the

comprehensive nature of the debate. But my concern relates to the fact

that the Prime Minister spoke about a Isil first plan, rather than Syria

first. There is evidence that Assad's barbarity is unhelpful,

forcing moderate Syrians towards extremism. I feel the UK has not

priority it demanded. What the priority it demanded. What the

assurance can you give the House that a tactical focus on air strikes

will not distract or undermine those vital attempt to achieve a ceasefire

and political transition? I think she puts it well, and the guarantee

I can give is that we are stepping up our diplomatic and political

efforts, and you can see that through the work of the Foreign

Secretary on the work I am doing on this issue. I can guarantee that

this is a serious strategy because in the end there is no defeat of

Isil until in the end there is a Syrian Government that can represent

all of its people. These Islamist all of its people. These Islamist

extremist groups, wherever they are in the world, whether in Somalia or

Nigeria, or Libya, they take Nigeria, or Libya, they take

advantage of ungoverned space of corrupt governments, of feel failure

for countries to look after their people. This is a serious strategy

but we have to recognise there will be no Syria unless we can do great

and destroy Isil. Can I thank the Prime Minister for his considered

statement and approach to the issue today. I think it is important

following the atrocities in Paris that we stand shoulder to shoulder

with France. And I will be supporting any motion he brings

forward to take action against Isil in Syria. Will he be talking to his

counterparts in other European Union countries to ensure that they also

play their part in defeating them? Can I thank him for his support. I

can confirm I will be having these conversations. President Hollande is

coming to the Commonwealth heads of government conference to talk about

climate change on Friday, and I will report to him directly on the

feeling in this House of Commons about the need to stand shoulder to

shoulder with our French allies and colleagues. We also have an EU

conference on EU relations with Turkey, and I will be able to have

and prime ministers about the and prime ministers about the

discussions we have had here, and the mood of the House of Commons and

what needs to be done. With the what needs to be done. With the

agree that whatever important agree that whatever

differences we have that there is a differences we have that there is a

united message from across the House united message from across the House

about its up audience of Islamic about its up audience of Islamic

State and its work, and we wish to eliminate it from our society? Would

he also agree that we must learn the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan

and Libya and not to go when on a tactic and make up the strategy as

you go along, and that fundamentally you go along, and that fundamentally

would he consider again addressing would he consider again addressing

even more fully that doing the things Islamic State want us not to

do, to build an international Coalition, including Assad, Turkey,

Russia and above all to build an Islamic Coalition in the region so

that those people on the ground in the region can carry the whole of

global moderate Islamic opinion with global moderate Islamic opinion with

them and isolate Islamic State from them and isolate Islamic State from

there support? He is absolutely right that we need to show unity in

what we say about Isil, and that is clear across the House. We also need

to make sure that the Coalition to cancer -- counter them... You cannot

include Assad in that Coalition include Assad in that Coalition

recruiting sergeants to Isil because recruiting sergeants to Isil because

of the barrel bombs and attacks on his own people, but let me be clear,

this military action, where are we this military action, where are we

not the regime. I welcome the not the regime. I welcome the

opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with our two closest

military allies, France and the USA. But does he agree that we need to

protect our way of life for future generations, and also the Syrian

refugees that want to return home? She makes a very good point. What

lies behind this action is not just protection of ourselves, but

building a Syria to which people can return, that is what they want. I

commend the Prime Minister for the commend the Prime Minister for the

way he has brought this to the House. But the failure to date of

the Allied operation to defeat Daesh is not because of a lack of air

power are bombs we could provide, it is a lack of ground forces able to

capitalise. The Free Syrian Army are not even focused on the task of --

only focused on defeating Daesh, the also focused on defeating Assad's

regime. Does he agree the strategy is one of hope, not of confidence? I

am grateful about what he says about the way I am presenting the case.

Syria is very far from perfection. Even in Iraq, where we have ground

troops of the Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga, it is a far from

ideal situation, as members have said. We need to see more Sunnis

engaged in ground forces, but if you conclude from that that we should do

nothing, I believe that is despair. We should be taking this action,

building on the resources we have. Isil poses a direct threat to the

security of this country, and the country should therefore play its

part in helping to defeat it. To the tell us about the position of

defeating Iran, which is one of the principal sponsors of the Assad

regime, and which has many thousands of troops on the ground in Syria? He

makes an important point, Iran plays an important role in Syria, but we

have many differences with Iran and its policies and its approach, and

as the first British Prime Minister to meet an Iranian President for

many years, I have always been clear about those differences. But we can

agree that the importance of Iran -- agree on the importance of Iran

taking part in this. We need the taking part in this. We need the

regional players to buy into the future of Syria.

It is of course critical that we learn lessons from the past, but

it's also critical that we escape the trap that sees Isil and its

affiliate has always been a reaction to what we do. They are not

children, they are adults, fully and entirely responsible for what they

do. If we take the decision he's going to put before us, it will not

just extend our involvement, it will extend our responsibility. What more

can he say to convince the house and indeed the country of his and his

government's staying power on the diplomatic and political front,

particularly at a time when big questions are being asked about

Britain's ruled the world and how we see our place in the world? I have

said before, I think he speaks with great clarity about this issue,

about Isil, about the threat they pose and about their own

responsibility for their actions. In terms of what written can bring in

terms of statecraft and resources, you have seen the decision we have

taken about the Foreign Office and aid budget, I think we do have an

ability to bring countries together, to play a big role in what is needed

diplomatically and also to be able to have a large wallet at the end of

this process, not just to look after refugees, but to help rebuild this

country once the war is over. The Right Honourable member spoke

exactly when he said that Isil are responsible for their actions. Could

he make some comments on the fact that these attacks are not an add on

to their strategy, it is a quarter part of their philosophy, which is a

vile, Satanic death cult and it must be stopped. He has considerable

military experience and understanding of these issues and it

is a core part of the Isil strategy, not simply to build a so-called

caliphate across Iraq and Syria, but the plan external attacks from the

caliphate, as we have seen in Beirut and Paris. It is a core part of what

they do. I'm glad that he agrees we won't win unless there are more

moderate Sunnis involved in forming the government in waiting. What

assurances can he give is that there are moderate Sunni leaders, because

the truth is the Iraqi security forces and the three Syrian army

will find it difficult to take the cities. If those political leaders

are there, can he tell us who they are? Firstly, he is absolutely right

to say we need those forces. We have rolled back a large extent of the

so-called caliphate in Iraq. In terms of the moderate Syrian forces,

they will suffer further attrition unless we support them. There are

70,000 now, there will be more if we didn't street are support for them

financially, as we do already and with equipment as we do already,

frankly, by taking the fight to Isil, who are an enormous threat to

them. This is partly within our powers. In terms of the people who

read these organisations, where it's the Kurdish authorities or the Free

Syrian Army, all of whom we are working with, if the argument is

being made that there aren't enough of them, yes, I agree. But I don't

think that's an argument for in action, I think it's an argument for

action and building them up. The only apparent source of wealth that

Isil has come some onshore oilfields, which we could, with

precision bombing, take out. But we have made little progress on this.

Will we be able to do this going forward? It's a very good point. A

lot of these fields are in Syria and when we asked the question, what

more can we do to cut off the source of funds to Isil, it would be

enormously helpful if we could take the action in Syria that I'm talking

about. While there are some who will set a myriad of preconditions that

we realistically know cannot be met in the timescale given, there are

nevertheless very legitimate questions. Can I return him to the

issue will he have the courage to say that while the government is far

from being a great improvement on its predecessor, actually, their

political settlement in Iraq is broken, and only long-term solution

to this will lead the international community to recognise that good a

great emphasis on rebuilding the capacity by the Sunni areas in

particular in that country to be able to build up the capacity to

govern for themselves will stop he is right, the situation and

government in Iraq is fragile, it needs a lot of extra work. It is an

improvement on what came before. But again, I would make the argument

that it is buying gauging that we are unable to bring about this

change. I think this debate is revealing that there are answers to

all these questions, one can raise the issue about whether the

comprehensive enough, but there is no perfection when it comes to this.

In the end, we can ask all the questions and we can try and answer

all the questions and only get to a point of decision. In my, with what

is emerging from this discussion, there are answers, but we can't

dodge a decision. In relation to defeating this evil organisation's

ideology and appeal and self proclaimed legitimacy, France and

other countries use the term Daesh, and I think it would help stem the

rise of Islam phobia by stopping the link with Islam and this

organisation. They have chosen to call themselves Islamic State for a

reason, and we shouldn't do that. My only concern is whether we might

lose the public by changing the name, but I am listening very

carefully to the arguments he is making. I thank the Prime Minister

further patients he has shown this morning. Can I pressed him on one

point. He topped very rightly about combating Isil Daesh. Can he use the

word separate comfort people in this country, that the government is not

about regime change in Serbia? I'm very happy to say that. We are not

proposing to take military action to achieve regime change in Syria, that

is not the agenda. The agenda is to help others, including our allies,

to degrade and deflate and ultimately destroyed Isil. We do

believe, as everyone believes in the process that the need to be

political transition in Syria. That is not just our view, it is the view

of our allies. Whatever one's view about Assad, overtime, there needs

to be a comprehensive and clueless stick government in Syria that can

represent all those people. The Prime Minister is absolutely right

to say that Daesh needs to be taken on in its physical territory in

northern Iraq and Syria, but would he agree with me that this is not

just a physical battlefield, this is a battlefield that is taking place

in cyberspace as well and we need to make sure that we take on Isil/Daesh

wherever they are. He is right, they have put a lot of use to social

media and the Internet and the conflict is to take place there as

well. One of the challenges we will face out the increasing number of

refugees in spring next year. What steps will we take with our allies

to make sure we deal with the threat of terrorism using the cover of the

passage of refugees into Europe to strike at European countries,

including the United Kingdom. Obviously, at Europol smack external

border, we need to do better at making sure refugees are properly

fingerprinted and documented, so people can do what they have

happened recently with movements across-the-board. Obviously, in

Britain, we maintain our own border controls and were able to stop

people coming into this country, whether they are European citizens

are coming from elsewhere, if we have legitimate security concerns.

Thank you. I think the whole house will appreciate the way the Prime

Minister is taking this process through Parliament. On Monday, he

was at the dispatch box and he said in answer to me that he had an open

door to the Leader of the Opposition on this issue, and the Leader of the

Opposition today has asked seven sensible questions, but hasn't

expressed a view on what he might do. Does the Prime Minister think

there is room, perhaps before next week, to get the Leader of the

Opposition in and agree a draft motion with him? My door is open to

the Leader of the Opposition. He and his team had a briefing from my

national security adviser last night and asked a series of questions and

got some comprehensive answers. Obviously, if we decide to go ahead

with a boat, because that is a sign of significant support across the

house, I will try to draft the broadest possible motion that will

attract the widest possible support. If people have suggestions for

things they want to see a map motion, I am very happy to hear from

them. To bring him back to the direct threat to our own

constituencies, he will be aware of members of my constituency who were

groomed and trained to go and fight for a Isil/Daesh. And he says more

about the necessity of going after Isil/Daesh in their territory they

control and the impact on actions here. I think he makes a very

important point and that's why are military objectives are not humbly

about the training camps and the rest. While this so-called caliphate